Full text of "A plain introduction to the criticism of the New Testament for the use of biblical students"

See other formats

shatafs beserntetednveienete
Spe eons λα tes ohn
Teheveosiiote

ONAL pel Me athe
POON aim ρφθο ων mie oe bul οὐ πρσιρό tml
sells phe My! othe oo wlPs baad state gol.
wate nach rts the hates Hehe ww
pore nn es tien ie ett
eB aaey oFevodeiimperse as wa jpel +

parte or οὐρα σία.
Baertnas season sachet’

ehetahom bere

“ . Ν patos a - ΟΝ Pete wRadiesenens:
pot Gode Sales Hate - . witetiadin φθάσ deethapavrniasbelanten hottie tae Masrnsieb4)

τ
παν αν αρασν τα -
ἔρλφον Gel ete gas 0st ta'iathele ϑ :
iors : : owner - - ahonnt ral
᾿ josh von patew nip bits (pa tn onia. yates Toth
poser

ee Dei κύσε
ΠΝ

ἜΣ
ΣΝ

ar eh atteine tenes: δὲ δι Ἄφῳ ον φαλνο ee
ΟΝ

Satie
SOihichent tee
annie he rada bw: σάφ fat

F PRINCES
KE <Any 0 me

| Nov 4 941 *

Ὁ

% e,
\Logicar sew

BS2385_
S434.

)
Ue
wR) aie
iy ΠΝ ἐς

i ei) ὌΝ

MAPA is
7 i

μα, 21 Cooper.
Sehood 2Ζῴεσε.

ΞΟ, ἄρ
a “252 χ Ὁ

howe We es. hg
eA Wiln: thr:

AD. Ζφρεεεχχ.
A

PLAIN INTRODUCTION

TO THE

CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

φΦ
>
OOF
<
e — +
.
»
ἐ
Φ
. ΓῚ ὃ
4
4
᾿
¥ ‘

- - ὁ Ψ } i i 4
~ Cambridge :
PRINTED BY 6. J, CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS,
= fy 9
¢ ΤῊΝ sry: [ ‘oe ry ry? Ty

- , ὃ ! ς » ~~ > δὲ ἃ δ᾽.

; a OF HON

NOV 4 lot ©

PLAIN INTRODUCTIO

x OGICA soa?

CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

FOR THE USE OF BIBLICAL STUDENTS.

FREDERICK HENRY SCRIVENER, M.A.

OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,
RECTOR OF ST GERRANS, CORNWALL,

In templo Dei offert unusquisque quod potest: alii aurum, argentum, et lapides
pretiosos: alii byssum et purpuram et coccum offerunt et hyacinthum. Nobiscum
bené agitur, si obtulerimus pelles et caprarum pilos. Et tamen Apostolus con-
temtibiliora nostra magis necessaria judicat—HimronymMi Prologus Galeatus,

CAMBRIDGE:
DEIGHTON, BELL, AND CO.
LONDON: BELL AND DALDY.
1861.

" 4
Ε eet), ,
Vy i. 2a
ἣν i bi '
σις

POUNCE, AE

ne a
ee

δεν 104 OY, oe

ΦῸ

seater ἀκα SO Rae ier Oe

4 el “Ὁ -
AIG ΠΟ ΟΥΑΙ Ae
Se eee αὐ ὙΤΥΡΙΟΥ Wa

JW hee) μά TS, ὦ συνε

’
_ ν
4 He, οί οὐ
iat δὲ SRA νΡο like 4 im Lote eq sig Alia ey + ed J
amt ΜΕ Ὶ
᾿ 1

δι eee ὦ SE? ΚΌΝΟΔΑ ara ἣν
J foie εἴ γῶν ΟΝ 44 ὐγῷᾷ “πε ἃ

ole SD ἐν ον ταν Kail ieee Ope δῃ

ΠΑ} Ὁ
ὦ σπγὰ Jt MORRGING
thd pa ee, ῃ{09ὲ Ouran ;
RAE: ἀν

.
.

νά é
le oe i

ADVERTISEMENT.

THE following pages are chiefly designed for the ‘use of
those who have no previous knowledge of the Textual
Criticism of the New Testament; but since the Author has
endeavoured to embody in them the results of very recent
investigations, he hopes that they may prove of service to
more advanced students. He asks the reader’s indulgence
for the annexed list of Addenda et Corrigenda, both by
reason of the peculiar character of his work, and the
remoteness of West Cornwall from Public Libraries. He
might easily have suppressed the greater part of them, but
that he has honestly tried to be accurate, and sees no
cause to be ashamed of what Porson has well called “ the
common lot of authorship.” He has only to add that he
has not consciously borrowed from other writers without
due acknowledgement, and to return his best thanks to the
Rev. H. O. Coxe for important aid in the Bodleian, and to
Henry Bradshaw Esq., Fellow of King’s College, for valuable
. instruction respecting manuscripts in the University Library

at Cambridge.

Faumoutu, September, 1861.

What aatrise Yoooreny goer teelt sit eeqiatod

ἢ ᾿ ἡ Ψ ἜΣ
dr ‘ai as an mots ey . δὰ
Δ,
πο
ata
ΩΝ j

cullen cies. cena
ΕΜ ΣΟ off Yo. oofefneied worry on od οὐ, ΒΝ
ort ee se ΔΕΎ ΝΣ
Livin vise bo wipers edd ἐμ. och gadind ὃ '

patterutishusi ‘¥sobaet ot edad oil aiid Dee

Yd lod )esgrew’) ἐν what kOe anf Tecoma
ij ada how "ὦ! Wr τυ a
lt μάν oiifetl, cette awe): dee ts ρ
hat gio to Poy τον, Od ἰχῤδαυδηνθα Wid ag
on dose Bare αὐ δύση rh οὐ feted γκαρού on ol
δ. Ὁ haltes (ee ned more Sed ee Lecrrntalons uf υ 4
od jadi iba. οὐ dno cal mit αὐπεπαβλιιῷ we. ont
ἐπα oothw dio mot πα qouemaam tut π
old of cllitedY Med dd inugiet of bee Jnana) toda
οὐ fee ἀμ eal oft at δα νης ἊΣ «τὸ a
gidaaler το ὔ λΠ Ὁ Te ἡ] Ὁ δ we Teta
urtdhi vilesovin') odd th sighoeinear {eager me

ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA,

Page 7, 1. 31, for 16 read 20.

p. 12, last line but one, for Acts xiv. read Acts xvi.

p. 14, note, add: Yet Cod. Augiensis (ΕἾ reads κρν 1 Cor. ix. 1.

p. 27, 1. 17, read hieroglyphics.

pp. 27, 28, Cod. Friderico-August. is Plate I. No. 3, Cod. Alexandrin. Plate I. No. 2. !
p. 29, n. 1, phi has the same lozenge shape in Cod. Bezae, p. 34, L 13, and elsewhere.
p. 30, 1. 25, and p. 35, 1. 6, for p. 28 read p. 29.

p. 36, n. 2; p. 40 bis; p. 138, 1. 8, for Sylvestre read Silvestre.

p. 37, 1. 3, for Plate I. read Plate III.

p. 47,n.; p. 51, η. 2; p. 85, ἢ. 2, for Horne II. read Horne IV.

Ρ. 57, 1. 21; p. 83, 1. 39; p. 95,1. 1; p. 110,1. 5; p. 135, 1. 30, for 1711 read 1710.

p. 85, n.1, J. W. B. of the Guardian is now known to be the Rev. J. W. Burgon, M.A., Fellow
of Oriel College, Oxford, whose delightful “Letters to Home Friends,” are announced for repub-
lication. Mr Burgon has an unique and beautiful photograph of Act. i. 1—3? in Cod. B.

_p. 90, n. 3, Mr Westcott kindly points out that Dr Dobbin is quoting Tregelles’ Lecture on the
Historic Evidence of the N. T., p. 84.

p. 96,1. 34. Cod. Bezae is numbered Nn. τι. 41 in the Catalogue of Manuscripts at Cambridge.

p. 99,1. 29. The letters in Cod. D, as a whole, are larger than in AB. Scrivener is engaged
on a new edition of it, printed line for line in common Greek type, with Prolegomena, Notes
and fac-similes, to be sold at a low price. He finds, by recent experience, that Kipling’s accuracy
is over-stated in pp. 98, 99.

p. 106, 1. 33. Add after “canons”: τίτλοι and the larger κεφάλαια in red (those of St John being
lost): the church-notes seem primd manu. Each member in the genealogy in Luke iii. forms a
separate line, as in Cod. B, (see p. 87).

p. 110, 1. 23: add: Another facsimile is given in Silvestre, No. 76. Cod. M contains Eusebius’
letter to Carpianus, a note in Slavonic, and others in a contemporaneous cursive hand.

p. 115, ll. 16—24 is obviously the same fragment as ΝΡ, p. 111, one of the most difficult to read
I ever examined.

p. 121, 1. 6, for less read greater.

p. 123, 1.14. I now observe that Hug (Introd. τ. 283, Wait) divides the kindred Cod. G of St
Paul into στίχοι on the same plan.

p. 126,137. Cod. Zacynthius is just announced as ready (Sept. 1861). See also ἢ. 347,1, 32.
p. 137, 1. 40, for de read des.
p. 142. Cod. 1 was formerly numbered B. vt. 27 at Basle.

p. 149, 1.1. Elsewhere (except in p. 150, 1.5; p. 152, 1 3) more correctly called by its modern
name the University Library.

p. 158, Cod. 124, for Nessel 118, read Nessel 188.
p. 170, Cod. 311, for Reg. 303, read Reg. 203.

Ῥ. 182, 1. 20, for 187, read 181.

p. 185, 1. 12, for Psaltery read Psalter.

p. 187, Act. 4. Insert X between B and 20.

p. 188, Act. 20. Add: 4°, the Pauline Epistles precede the Acts and Catholic Epp. (see Ὁ. 61).
One leaf is lost in Hebr. (Casley) and the manuscript is quite illegible in parts,

p. 188, Act. 21. Add (Wetstein).

p. 192, 1. 24, Act. 72, For 97 read 96.

p. 193, Act. 102. See p. 225 note, where the error is corrected.

p. 197, Act. 178 is now Middle Hill 1461, Apoc. m.8°",

p. 203, Paul 119, prefix an asterisk to this Codex.

p. 206, Paul 213. From the reading (rod θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς τοῦ χριστοῦ) in Coloss. ii. 2 it is pretty
clear that this is one of the 22 Barberini manuscripts mentioned in p. 157, Evan, 112.

p. 208. 1. 34, Apoc. 41 is Alexandrino-Vat._68, not 69.

p. 223, Apost. 2. Add: The lessons exactly correspond with those in our list (pp. 68—74): five
of the Saints’ day lessons are from-the Catholic Epistles. This codex is written in a fine bold hand
with red musical notes.

p. 224, Apost. 44, 45 are respectively BB and CC of Missy, but 1633, 1634 of his Sale Catalogue.

p. 272, 1.31. Spell Giorgi to be uniform with p. 116, 1. 12, and p. 273, 1. 7.

Ῥ. 274, 1. 20. Dean Ellicott (Philipp. dc.) marks an Arian pes in the rendering of Phil. ii.
6—8 in the Gothic, which he praises as usually accurate and faithf

vill ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA.

p. 278, 1. 20, ἅς. Ellicott, speaking from personal experience. “cannot in =i way agree” with
Tregelles’ estimate of the Athiopic, adding “in St Paul's Epistles I have found it any thing but
the dreary paraphrase which he terms it” (Philipp. &c. Preface, p. viii. n. 2). On this point I can
only record the contradictory judgments of others.

p. 306,1. 11, Luke xix. 4: add ἘΞ after B.

p. 310, 1. 39. I observe that Kuenen (N. T. ad fidem Cod. Vatican. Praef. p. li.) cites Aischyl.
Suppl. 391 for κρῖμα, but adds “apud Nonnum a Stephano laudatum eis κρίμα δισσὸν ἔβην.
Hinc sequitur scriptores N. T. omnes aequalium consuetudinem secutos κρίμα dixisse.” But how
was Nonnus [v] an aequalis of the sacred writers ?

p. 319, 1.6. Spell Gerhard ἃ Miastricht, wniformly with p. 152, 1. 36.

p. 329, 1.2. Read and facsimiles of Manuscripts (twenty-nine in all), the whole being &c.

p. 330,1. 17, for Wilkin’s read Wilkins’.

p. 340, 1.12. Read one of the most celebrated philologists,

p. 400, 1. 39. Insert Since before Dean Alford.

p. 425,1.18, For καὶ read και. The few stops are inserted for the reader’s convenience,

+ p. 431, L 23, for vv. 9—12 read wv. 9—20.

Postscript. We have not named in the body of this work the papyrus fragments of St Matthew
and St James, said to have been unrolled by M. Simonides, and now in the possession of Mr
Mayer of Liverpool, to which a marvellous date has been assigned. When facsimiles shall have
been published and studied and compared with the originals, we shall be better able than at

present to estimate their value.

I have reseryed till this place the corrections to Dr Bloomfield’s list of manuscripts, collated
or inspected by him, which renewed examination has enabled me to make. My venerated friend
has not distinguished in his Catalogue between the Harleian and Additional codices in the
British Museum.

p. 186. Addl. 14774, add; A splendid copy, 4°, κεφ. t (red or gold), κεφ., τίέτλοι, Am., Bus. (often
omitted), men., lect., with iluminations (cost £84).

Ibid. Addl. 15581, add: 12° neat,.with leaves misbound. Am., Eus. (mostly omitted), lect,
secundé manu, the Latin chapters later still.

Ibid, Addl. 16184, add: exceptthe Apocalypse, in the usual Greek order (see p. 61), pa by
liturgical matter on paper and vellum, 37 or 38 lines on a small 4° page. The gospels have κεφ. t.,
prol., κεφ.» τίτλοι (rubro, almost obliterated), Am. (not Eus.), lect., the Epistles prol., κεφ. t, Eutha-
lian τίτλοι, lect., with full syn., and other matter at the end.

Ibid. Addl. 17469, 17741 are wrongly set down by Bloomfield as 17467, 17740 respectively.

p. 187. Addl. 18211, add: with 12 leaves chart. [xv] to fill up hiatus, κεφ. ἐ, τίτλοι, Am. (not
Eus.), some lect., from Patmos. F. V. J. Arundell, British Chaplain at Smyrna (1834), describes
this copy, given him by Mr Borrell, and a Lectionary sold to him at the same time, in his “ Disco-
veries in Asia Minor,” Vol. τι. p. 268. He there compares it with the beautiful Cod, Ebnerianus
(Evan. 105), which it does not resemble in the least, being larger and far less elegant.

Ibid. Addl, 19387, add: 4°, in the Museum Catalogue [x1v].

Ibid. Addl. 19389, add: τίτλοι, Am. (not Lus.), lect., elegantly written by Cosmas, a monk ;
bought of Simonides, 1853.

p. 207, 1,3. Codd. 5540, 5742 are neither Harl., nor Addl. I cannot set right these false refer-
ences.

Tbid.1. 4. Addl. 19389 must mean 19388 [xm or xtv], 4°, small but very neat, bought of
Simonides, 1853. Here again the Pauline Epp. precede the Catholic (begins 2 Cor. xi. 25, ends
1 Pet. iii. 15), the Acts being absent. Prol., lect., Kuthalian κεφ.

pp. 218, 219. Evst. 151 and 152 were also inspected by Bloomfield.

p. 223,1.9. Cod. 536 is neither Harl. nor Addl, and I cannot explain the error. Dele Codd.
1575, 1577. Addl. 5153 is [xix or x1], 4°, 2 vol., mut., in bad condition, with red musical notes, and
some leaves supplied on paper and vellum. We have omitted Bloomfield’s 5684 (Harl., not Addl.)
as being Evan. G (see p. 106).

Thid. Addl. 18212 [Χιτ] 4°, much mut. at the end, with red musical notes and an older leaf
from the Old Testament prefixed.

Thid. Addl. 19460 (x111] 4° small, is very coarsely written, imperfect, and in bad condition.

Thid. Addl. 19993 [xtv] 4° small, chart., damaged, but in a bold hand. At the beginning is an
Avertissment, signed G. Alefson, which ends literally thus: “Je Vai acheté seulement r le sauver
des mains barbares qui allait le destruire intierement au pria de sch. 15 a Chypre, A.D, 1851,

. 225, 1. 35. From our totals we must strike off two codices of St Paul and three Evangelis-
taria, which we cannot recognise, but 19388 must be added to the list of the Catholic Epistles; thus
our total of known cursives is 1456.

CON ΤΙΝ 15.

. CHAPTER I.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. . . .

Various readings in the text of Holy Scripture might be looked for
beforehand, §§ 1—3, pp. I—3. They actually exist, ὃ 4, p. 3. Sources of
information on this subject numerous, ὃ 5, p. 3. Textual criticism usually
inapplicable to modern books, ὃ 6, p. 4. Importance of this study, ὃ 7,
p. 5. Not difficult, § 8, Ρ. 5. Its results not precarious, nor tending to
unsettle Scripture, § 9, p. 6. Various readings classified and their sources
traced, §§ το, τι, pp. 7—16. Their extent, ὃ 12, p. 17. General divisions
of this whole work, § 13, p. 17.

CHAPTER II.

ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Section I.
Their general character . - :

Authorities named, § 1, p. 19. Materials for writing, $$ 2, 3, pp. 20o—2.
Palimpsests, ὃ 4, p.22. Ornaments, ὃ 5, p.23. Ink, 86, p.23. Pens, ὃ 7,
p- 24. Shape of manuscripts, ὃ 8, p. 24. Style of writing: wncial and
cursive characters, ὃ 9, p. 25. Principles for determining the date of writing,
illustrated by examples and facsimiles, §$ 10, I1, pp. 27—38. Use of ε
ascript or subscript, ὃ 12, p. 38. Breathings and accents in manuscripts,
§ 13, p. 39. Punctuation, ὃ 14, p. 42. Abbreviations, § 15, p. 43. Stzcho-
metry, ὃ 16, p. 44. Correction or revision of manuscripts, ὃ 17, p. 46.
Ancient divisions of the New Testament, § 18. (1) Vatican, p. 47. (2)
Tatian’s, p. 48. (3) Ammonian, Eusebian, p. 50. (4), (5) Euthalian, &c.
pp: 53, 54. Subscriptions to the various books, ὃ 19, p. 54. Foreign matter
in manuscripts of the N. T. ὃ 20, p. 56. Table of divisions, ancient and
modern, ὃ 21, pp. 57,58. Modern divisions, ὃ 22, p. 58. Contents of N.T.
manuscripts, ὃ 23, p. 60. Order of the sacred books, ὃ 24, p. 61. Lection-
aries or Greek Service-books, § 25, p. 62. Notation and classes of manu-
scripts, § 26, p. 65.

PAGE

Χ CONTENTS.

APPENDIX TO Sect. I. o
PAGE

Synaxarion and Menology, or tables of lessons read in the Greek
Church daily throughout the year ke. - 68—T75

Section II.
Description of Uncial Manuscripts of the Greek Testament. 76

Codex Sinaiticus, p. 76. Cod. Alexandrinus, p. 79. Cod. Vaticanus,
p- 84. Cod. Ephraemi, p. 94. Cod. Bezae, p. 96. Of the Gospels; Cod. E.
p. 103. Cod. F, p. 104. Cod. F*, p. 105. Codd. G, H, p. 106. Codd. I,
K, p. τοῦ. Cod. L, p. 108. Cod. M, p. 109. Cod. Ngp. 110. Cod. ΝΡ,
Ῥέτει. Οὐδ. Ὁ, Ὁ", Ob, 0°, OF, O°, p. 112. Codd. P, Q, p. 113. Codd:
BR, p: rq Cod. 8, p. 115. Codd..T, "3", τ 116; Codd. ἘΠῚ V; W*; paz
Codd. W», W°, X, p. 118. Codd. Y, Z, p. 119. Cod. Τὸ Ὁ. 121. Cod. A,
p. 122. Codd. Θ, A, p. 124. Cod. 2, p. 126. Codd. Tischendorfiani, p. 127.
Of the Acts, &c.: Cod. E, p. 128. Codd. G, H, p. 129. Cod. K, p. 130. Of
St Paul: Cod. D, p. 130. Cod. E, p. 132. Cod. F, p. 133, Cod. G, p. 135.
Cod. H, p. 137. Cod. M, p. 138. Cod. N°, p. 140. Of the Apocalypse :
Cod. B, p. 140.

Srotron IIT.

List and brief description of the Cursive Manuscripts of the Greek
Testament . . : ᾿ . 142

Srction LY.

List and brief description of the Lectionaries or Manuscript Ser-
vice-books of the Greek Church. ‘ ai

N.B. Index I. pp. 465—477, has been constructed to facilitate reference
to the Manuscripts described in Sections IJ, III, IV.

CHAPTER III.

ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS
LANGUAGES . , , ᾿ . 226

Use in criticism and classification of versions, ὃ 1, p. 226. Cautions
respecting their employment, § 2, p. 227. Syriac yersions, § 3: (1) Peshito,
p. 229. (2) Curetonian, p. 236. (3) Philoxenian, p. 241. (4) Jerusalem,
p. 245. (5), (6) Minor Syriac versions, p, 246. Specimens of each, p. 248.
Latin versions, ὃ 4: (1) Old Latin, p. 252. (2) Vulgate, p. 260. Specimens of
each, p. 267. Egyptian versions, § 5, p.270: (1) Memphitic, p. 271. (2) The-

CONTENTS.

Baic, p- 272. (3) Basmuric, p. 273. Gothic version, ὃ 6, p. 274. Armenian,
$7, p. 276. Aithiopic, ὃ 8, p.277. Georgian, ὃ 9, p. 279. Slavonic, ὃ το,
p. 280. Anglo-Saxon, ὃ 11, p. 280. Frankish, ὃ 12, p. 280. Persic, ὃ 13,
p. 281. Arabic, § 14, p. 281.

CHAPTER IV.

ON THE CITATIONS FROM THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT MADE BY
EARLY ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS . .

Critical use of such quotations, §1, p. 283. Obstacles to their application,
§ 2, p. 284. State of this branch of the subject, § 3, p. 285. Dated list of
chief ecclesiastical writers, ὃ 4, p. 286.

CHAPTER V.

ON THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL EDITIONS OF THE
GREEK NEW TESTAMENT . . : δ

First printed portions of N. T. p. 288, Complutensian Polyglott, § 1,
p. 288. Erasmus’ editions, ὃ 2, p. 294. Aldus’, &c. ὃ 3, p. 298. Robert
Stephens’, ὃ 4, p. 299. Early editions compared in St James’ Epistle, p. 301.
Beza’s editions, ὃ 5, p. 302. Elzevirs’, ὃ 6, p. 303. Full collation of Stephens
1550, Beza 1565, Elzevir 1624, &c. pp. 304—311. The London Polyglott,
§ 7, p. 312. Curcellaeus’ and Bp. Fell’s editions, ὃ 8, p. 313. Mill’s, § 9,
p: 315. Kuster’s, p. 318. Miaistricht’s N. T. ὃ το, p. 318. Bentley’s pro-
jected edition, p. 319. Mace’s, § 11, p. 321. Bengel’s edition, p. 322. Wet-
stein’s, ὃ 12, p. 324. § 13, (1) Matthaei’s, p. 327. (2) Alter’s, p. 329. (3)
Birch’s edition, p. 330. Griesbach’s, ὃ 14, p. 332. Scholz’s, § 15, p. 336.
Lachmann’s, ὃ 16, p. 340. Tischendorf’s, ὃ 17, p. 344. Tregelles’, § 18,
p-. 346. Postscript, p. 348.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER Y.

Collation of the N. 7. text in the Complutensian Polyglott 1514
with that in Elzevir 1624 . : - :

CHAPTER VI.

ON THE LAWS OF INTERNAL EVIDENCE, AND THE LIMITS OF
THEIR LEGITIMATE USE , ° . .

Internal evidence distinguished from conjectural emendation, p. 369.
Seven Canons discussed, pp. 371—7. In practice often opposed to each
other, p. 377.

ΧΙ

PAGE

283

288

349

369

ΧΗ CONTENTS.

~
CHAPTER VII.
΄ PAGE
ON THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT, INCLUDING A DISCUSSION OF

RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM . ; ae

Fate of the sacred autographs, $1, p. 379. Heretical corruptions of Scrip-
ture, ὃ 2, p. 381. Testimony of Irenaeus as to the state of the text, ὃ 3,
p. 382. That of Clement of Alexandria and of Origen, $4, p. 384. Old Latin
text and its corruptions, § 5, p. 385. State of the text in the fourth century
—Eusebius, ὃ 6, p. 387. Relation of the Codex Sinaiticus to Eusebius’ and
other ancient texts, § 7, p. 388. Testimony of Jerome, § 8, p. 389. Hug’s
theory of Recensions, ὃ 9, p. 391. Comparative Criticism defined: its objects
and true process, § 10, p. 393. The text of Scripture should be settled from
the use of all available evidence, § 11, p. 396. Scheme of Tregelles, ὃ 12,
p. 396. Its advantages and defects: Dean Alford’s view, § 13, p.398. Various
readings examined in Luke viii. 30—x. 25, $14, p. 400. Results of their
analysis, ὃ 15, p. 403. Inferences, ὃ 16, p. 404. Internal character of later
codices, ὃ 17, p. 406. Three practical rules stated, ὃ 18, p. 408. Results of
an analysis of the readings of Codd. R (PQ), ὃ 19, p. 409. Note on Cowper's
edition of Cod. Alexandrinus, p. 409.

CHAPTER VIII.

ON THE PECULIAR CHARACTER AND GRAMMATICAL FORM OF THE
DIALECT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT . . . 412

Origin and character of this dialect, §§ 1—3, p. 412. The “‘attached” ν,
§ 4, p. 413. Orthography of Proper Names, ὃ 5, p. 414. Peculiar gram-
matical forms, ὃ 6, p. 415. Dialectic varieties, ὃ 7, p. 417. Mere barbarisms
inadmissible on any evidence, § 8, p. 418.

CHAPTER IX.

APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS AND PRINCIPLES TO
THE CRITICISM OF SELECT PASSAGES OF THE Ν. Τὶ . 419

Explanation, p.419. (1) Matthewi. 18...p. 419. (2) Matth. vi. 13...p.421.
(3) Matth. xix. 17...p. 422. (4) Matth. xx. 28...p. 425. (5) Matth. xxi. 28
—31...p. 426. (6) Matth. xxvii. 35...p. 428. (7) Mark xvi. g—20...p. 429.
(8) Luke vi. 1...p. 433. (9) Luke xxii. 43—4...p. 434. (10) John i. 18...
p. 436. (11) John v. 3, 4...p. 438. (12) John vii. 53—viii. 12...p. 439. (13)
Acts viii. 37...p. 443. (14) Acts xv. 34...p. 444. (15) Acts xx. 28...p. 444.
(16) Romans v. 1.,.p. 447+ (17) 1 Corinth, xiii, 3...p. 448. (18) Philipp. ii.
1...p. 449. (19) Coloss, ii. 2...p. 450. (20) 1 Tim. iii. 16...p. 452. Reading
of Cod. Alex. p. 4330. (21) 1 Peter i. 23...p. 456. (22) 1 Peter iii. 15...
p. 456. (23) τ John ii. 23...p. 456. (24) 1 Johny. 7, 8...p.457- (25) Apoc.
xiii, 10...p. 463. Conclusion, p. 464.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PLATES. Xill

INDEX I.
PAGE
OF ALL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, ARRANGED
ACCORDING TO THE COUNTRIES WHEREIN THEY ARE NOW
DEPOSITED . cs : : 4 : : : : 05
INDEX II.
OF THE PRINCIPAL PERSONS AND SUBJECTS REFERRED TO IN THIS
VOLUME . t 4 ‘ . 478
INDEX III.
OF THE TEXTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ILLUSTRATED OR RE-
FERRED TO IN THIS VOLUME . 3 . 488

DESCRIPTION OF THE CONTENTS OF THE TWELVE
LITHOGRAPHED PLATES.

N.B. ‘The dates are given within brackets: thus [v1] means writing of the sixth
century of the Christian aera. For abridgements in the ancient writing,
866 p. 43.

PuatEe I, Three alphabets selected from (1) the ROSETTA STONE (see p. 27)
[B.0. 196], (2) the Cop. ALEXANDRINUS [V], (3) the Cop. Srnarricus [Iv], with HN
abridged at the end (see p. 78), from Tischendorf’s facsimile of Luke xxiv.

[(2), (3) are wrongly numbered (3) (2), pp. 27, 28.]

Puate II. Similar alphabets from (4) the Corron FraGMENT N (see p. 110),
Titus C. xv [vi], and (5) from Cop. Nrrrensis R (see p. 114), B. M. Add, 17211.

Puate III. Similar alphabets from (6) Cop. DUBLINENSIS Z (see p. 119),
(7) Cop. HaRBLEIAN. 5598 [dated 995], see p. 218. (8. ο) Cop, BuRNEY 19 [wrongly
assigned to Plate I. in p. 37, 1. 3], see p. 179 [x]. Above psi in (7) stands the
crosslike form of that letter in Apoc. Cod. B [vu11]: see p. 141.

PraTeE TV. (9) Extract from HypEriDEs’ Λόγος ἐπιτάφιος (Babington, 1858),
dating from B.C. 100 to A.D. 100, on Egyptian papyrus, in a running hand (866
Ὁ. 36). Awrac ma τῶν ποίλιτων ααικωσ δεοῖμαι ὑμων καὶ ετωιϊκαι αντιβολωι
κείλευσαι καμε καλεσαιίτους συνερουντασ >: see pp. 38, 44. (10) Extract from
PHILODEMUS περὶ κακιῶν (Herculanensium voluminum quae supersunt, fol., Vol. 11.
Col, xx. 1.6: see p. 29). οντωσ πολυμάθεστατον mpoc|ayopevomevoy over. πανταὶ

ΧΙΥ DESCRIPTION OF THE PLATES.

δυνασθαι γινωσκειν και ποι εἰν οὐχ οἱον EeavTov oo Evioig ovdev TL φωραται κατεχὼν | και
ov συνορων ort πολλα δειίται τριβησαν και απὸ Tho αὐτὴησ γινήται μεθοδου καθα περ
τα THo ποιητικὴσ μερὴ και] διοτι περι τουσ πολυμαθεισ᾽ (11. a) Cop. FRIDERICO-
Avaust. [iv], 2 Sam. vii. 10, 11, Septuagint. ceavrov καθωσ ἀρχησ καὶ ad
ἡμερῶώ ων εταξα Kpirao|eme Tov λαον μου] ισὰ και εταπινωΐσα ἀπαντασ τοὺς | exOpour
σου και αυξησω σε και οἱ: see pp. 43, 44; 78. (11. b). Cop. Smvarticus δὲ [1Υ}
Luke xxiv. 33 τὴ wpa ὕπεστρε Yar εἰσ ἵερουσα λημ καὶ εὑυρον ἡ θροισμενουσ τουσὶ
evdexa καὶ τοὺυσ σὺν αὐτοισ deyo|: see pp. 28, 30 note. There are no large or
capital letters in this Plate.

Puate V. (12) Cop. ALEXANDRIN. A [v] Gen. i. 1—2, Septuagint. These
four lines are in bright red, with breathings and accents: see pp. 39—40, 391 note.
Henceforth capital letters begin to appear. ἐν ἀρχῆ ἐπόιησεν ὁ 6c τὸν dv\pavdv και
τῆν γῆν ἡ δὲ γῆ ἣν ἀόϊρατοσ κὰι ἀκατασκεύαστοσ - | kal σκότοσ ἐπάνω τῆσ αβύσσου. |
(13) Zbid. Act. xx. 28, in common ink: see p. 447. Προσέχετε εαὐτοισ και παντί

Tw | ποιμνιω" εν ὦ ὕμασ TO mya TO | ayvov εθετο επισκοπουσ + | ποιμαινειν την εκκλησιανὶ
Tov κυ ἢν περιεποιήσατο διαϊτου αἰματος τοὺ ἰδιου (14) Cop. Corron. Titus C. xv.
N of the Gospels [v1], see pp. 110, 111, and for the Ammonian section and
Eusebian canon in the margin, p. 53. John xy. 20. Tov Noyou ov | eyw εἰπὸν ὃ μιν"

οὐκ εστιν dovAog μιζῶ | Tov κυ avTov.

PuaTeE VI. (15) Cop. BuRNEY 21 [dated 1292], see pp. 37 and note 2, 180.
John xxi. 17, 18. πρόβατά μου" ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω cou ὅτε Ho νεώτεροσ, éfdvviier
ἑαυτὸν" καὶ περιεπάτησ ὅπου ἤθελεσ' ὅταν δὲ γηράσησ, ἐκτενεῖσσ (16) Cop.
ARUNDEL 547, Evangelistar. [Ix], sce pp. 42, 220. The open work indicates stops
and musical notes in red. John viii. 13. Aurw οἱ φαρισᾶι οι- σὺ περὶ céavrov}
μαρτυρεῖσ pap\tupla σου. ὀυκ ἔστιν adnOjo+dame| (17) Cop. Nrrriensis, R of
the Gospels, a palimpsest [V1]: 866 pp. 22, 114, and note 2. Luke y, 26. £afov τὸν
Ov | καὶ ἐπλησθησαν φοβου λεγοντεσ ort}.

ῬΠΑΤΕ VII. (18) Cop. Dusrin, Z of the Gospels, a palimpsest [v1] from
Barrett; see pp. t19—121. Matth. xx. 33, 34. ανοιγωσιν οἱ οφθαλ͵μοι ἡμων |
Crrayxnobe be 01 | ἡψατο των ομματῶ | αὐτῶν και εὐυθεωσ'. (19) Cop, CLARO-
MONTANUS, D of St Paul [vr], in a stichometrical form (see pp. 44—46), with the
Greek and Latin in parallel columns (see p. 130), from Silvestre, Paléographie
Universelle, ΝΟ. 67. Tit. i. 8,9. μὴ ἀισχροκερδῆ ἀλλὰ φιλόξενον | φιλαγαθον σώφρονα
| δίκαιον ὅσιον ἐνκρατῆ | ἀντεχόμενον || non turpilucrum | sed hospitalem | benignum
sobrium | justum sanctum | continentem | adpectentem |)

Prats VIII. (20) Cop, Varican. B [1v] Psalm i. 1—3, Septuagint, sticho-
metrically arranged in two columns on the page (pp. 45, 86) from Silvestre, No. 60,
a tolerable facsimile, but very inferior to the yet unpublished and unique photograph
of Acts i. 1—3 ἢ, in the possession of the Rev. J. W. Burgon of Oriel. The numeral ἃ
in the upper margin may be primd manu, the line above being thus found in the
Herculanean rolls (see p. 43): for the bar, crosses, ornaments, and initial capital M
see p. 87: the title (mis-spelt Yaauo.) is late, as may be seen from the shape of p,
which closely resembles those in Plate XI, No. 38. μακάριοσ ἀνὴρ ba dux ἐπορέυθη
ἐν βουλῆ ἀσεβῶν | kde ἐν 060 ἁμαρτωλῶν οὐκ darn κὰι ἐπι καθέδραν λοιμὼν οὐκ

DESCRIPTION OF THE PLATES. XV

are by a later hand (see p. 86), and most of the errors in spelling may fairly be
imputed to Silvestre’s artist. (21) Cop, Recius 62 (L of the Gospels) [v1], see
pp. τοῦ---τορ: retraced after Tregelles (see p. 37, note 1), John xii. 13, 14.
+6 βασιλευσ τοῦ | m+ | Εὑρων δὲ ὁ s+ | ὀναριον, exaber|oev em αὐτο: Ka wo ἐστιν
yeypa| In the margin stand the greater κεφάλαιον 16 (14, seep. 48), the Ammonian
section pa (101, see p. 50) and the Eusebian canon ¢ (7, see p. 52). (22) Con.
Nanranus, U of the Gospels [1x or x], retraced after Tregelles, Mark vi. 18.
Βάντοσ αὐτου | ἐισ τὸ πλδιδ παρεκάλει ἀυ τὸν ὁ δαιμο νισθεισ ἵνα). For the margin
see p. 117. (23) Cop. Basi. 1 of the Gospels [x], see pp. 37, 142, retraced after
Tregelles. Matth. xv. 1, 2. Προσέρχονται αὐτῶι φαρισαῖοι τ γραμματεῖς | ἀπὸ
ἱεροσολύμων. λέγοντεσ᾽ διατί οἱ μαθηταί σου παραβαίνουσι τὴν παράδοσιν ie
πρεσβυτέρων' ov γὰρ νίπτονται Tas χειρασ᾽.

Puate IX, (24) Cop. Epurarmi, C, a palimpsest [v] from Tischendorf’s
facsimile: see pp. 22, 94, 452. The upper writing [x11?] is τοῦ τὴν πληθῦν τῶν]
ἐμῶν ἁμαρτημά || coua οἶδα ὅτι μετὰ τὴν γνῶσιν ἥμαρτον. translated from St
Ephraem the Syrian. The earlier text is 1 Tim. iii. 15, 16. wua tno αληθείασ: | Και
ομολογουμενωσ μέγα ἑστιν TO THT ἐυσεβειασ μυ'στηριον" θσ ἑφανερωθη εν σαρκι"-
εδικαιωθη ἑν mvt. For the accents &c. sce p. 96. (25) Cop. Laup. 35, E of the Acts
{v1] Latin and Greek, see pp. 128—129, in a sort of stichometry (p. 45). Act.
xx, 28, regere | ecclesiamn | domini |) rocwevew | τὴν εκκλησιαν τοὺ κὺ] Below are
specimens of six letters taken from other parts of the manuscript.

(37) Matth. 1, 1—3, Greek and Latin, from the Complutensian Polyglott,
1514: see pp. 288—294, especially p. 290.

Puate X. (26) Cop. Basiu., E of the Gospels [v111] retraced after Tregelles,
as are (27), (28), (29). See pp. 103—104, and for the stops p. 42. Luke xxii. 2, 3.
Kae ἐζήτουν οἱ ἀρχιέρεῖσ και οἱ γραμματεῖσ, τὸ πῶσ ἀνέλωσιν αὐτὸν, ἐφοβουντω
yap | τὸν adv’ εἰσῆλθεν δὲ σα] The Ammonian sections σξα, σὲβ (261, 262) and
Eusebian canon a (1) are in the margin. (27) Cop. ΒΟΒΈΕΙΙ, F of the Gospels
[tx or x], see pp. 104, 108. Mark x. 13 (Ammonian section only, ps or 106).
Kal mpoctpepoy | αὐτῶ παιδία ἵν᾿ ἅψηται ἀυ τῶν" ὁι δὲ μαθηϊτὰι ἐπετίμων). (28)
Cop. HaruEIANn. 5684, G of the Gospels [x], sce p. 106. Matth. ν. 30, 31.
βληθη- εἰσ γεεν ναν᾿ τε To Ne [see p. 107]. | "EppnOn 5é Ὅτι bc | dv ἀπολυση
τὴν | γυναῖκα durov’ | ap (ἀρχὴ) stands in the margin of the new lesson. (2g) Cop.
Cyprius, K of the Gospels [1x], see pp. 107, 108. Luke xx. 9 (with the larger
κεφάλαιον O or 7o in the margin). Tew τὴν παραβολὴν ταυτὴν ἀνοσ ἐφύτευσεν
ἀμπελῶνα - καὶ ἐξέδοτο ἀυτὸν γεωργοῖσ᾽ (8. b.) CoD. BoDLEIAN., A of the Gospels
[x or 1Χ], in sloping uncials, see pp. 36 note 1, 124. Luke xviii. 26, 27 and 30.
σαντεσ' κὰι Tic, | δύναται σωθῆναι" | 6 δὲ ic. ἐϊπεν" || τοῦτω" κὰι ἐν | τῶ ἀιῶνι τῶ
ἐρχομένω ζωὴν.

Puate XI. (30) Cop, Worrirt B, H of the Gospels [1x], see p. 106. Johni.
38—40. τοὺσ ἀκολοθοῦντασ λέγει ἀυτοῖσ-" τί ζη τεῖτε-" δι δε. ἐῖπον ἀυτῶ - ραββεί"
ὃ λέγεται ἐρμηνευόμενον διδάσκαλε ποῦ μένεισ-" λέγει ἀυτοῖσ --- ἐρχεσθε Kau ἴδετε +
|. Retraced after Tregelles, as is No. 31: in the originals of both codices the
dark marks seen in our facsimiles are no doubt red musical notes. (31) Cop.
CamPIaNnus, M of the Gospels [1x], see pp. τοῦ, 110. Matth. iii. 11. "Ey μὲν -
βαπτίζω | ὑμᾶσ ἐν ὕδατι eto | μετάνοιαν +6 δὲ 6 | πίσω μου épxdue|. In the margin
stand the Ammonian section ia (11), and the Eusebian canon a (1). (31. b)

xvi DESCRIPTION OF THE PLATES.

Cop. Eman. Conn. Canta. Act. 53, Paul. 30 [X11], see pp. 44, 191. This
minute and elegant specimen, beginning Rom. v. 21, Xv τοῦ Kv ἡμων" and ending
vi. 7, δεδικαίωται ἀ, is left to exercise the reader’s skill. (38) Cop. Ruser, M of
St Paul [x], see pp. 138—140. 2 Cor. i. 3—5. παρακλήσεωσ' ὁ rapakadwy | ἡμᾶσ
ἐπὶ πάση Τῆι θλίψει. do τὸ δύνασθαι ἡμᾶσ παρακαλεῖν | Todo ἐν πάση θλίψει διὰ
Tho παϊρακλήσεωσ ἣσ παρεκαλούμεϊθα ἀντοὶ ὑπὸ Tov θῦ. ὅτι Kabac|. (8. a) CoD.
ΒΟΡΙΕΙΑΝ., Τ' of the Gospels [1x], see pp. 36 note 1, 121—122. Mark viii. 33,
πιστραφεὶσ καὶ ἰδὼν τουσ paldnrac durod- ἐπετίμησεν τῷ | πέτρω λέγων. ὕπαγε
ὁπίσω μδ΄.

Puiate XII. (32) PArwam. 18 Evangelistarium [dated 980], see pp. 37 note 3,
220, Luke ix. 34. γοντοσ ἐγένετο νεφέλη Kae ἐπεσκίασεν ἀυτοὺσ ἐφοβήθησα.
Annexed are six letters taken from other parts of the manuscript. (33) Cop.
Mownacensis, X of the Gospels [1x], sce pp. 118, 119: retraced after Tregelles, as
also is (34). Luke vii. 25, 26. τίοισ ἠμφιεσμένον" tov ou | ἐν ἵἹματισμώ ἐνδόξω και
τρυ φῇ ὑπάρχοντεσ ἐν Toe βασιλεί | ao ἐισὶν' ἄλλα τί eEeAprvOa\. (34) Con.
REGIUS 14, 33 of the Gospels, Paul. 17 [x1], see pp. 37, 145. Coloss. i. 24, 25.
παθήμασιν ὑπερ ὑμῶν᾽" καὶ ἀνταναπληρῶ τὰ ᾿ὕστερήματα των θλίψεων του xu év τη
σαρκί μου ὑπερ Tou σώματοσ duTéu 6 εστιν ἡ ἐκκλησία" qo ἐγενόμηω ἐγὼ πᾶυλοσ did |.
(35) Cop. LEICESTRENSIS, 69 of the Gospels, Paul. 37 [XIV], see pp. 24, 38, 151.
1 Tim. iii. τό. τῆς evoeBe(?)las μυστήριον" ὁ ὅς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρ κί" ἐδικαιώθη ἐν
πνεύματι" ὥφθη ἀγγέλοις" | ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν" ἐπὶς. εὐὔθη ἐν κόσμω" ἀνελή---- (36)
Cop. Burney 22, Evangelistar. [dated 1319], see pp. 38, 220, The Scripture text
is Mark vii. 30. βεβλημέν ov ἐϊπὶ τὴν κλίνην κ' | τὸ δαιμόνιον ἐξελἠλυθῶσ :--- ΤῊ

subscription which follows is given at length in p. 38, note 1,

The reader will have observed throughout these specimens that the breathings
and accents are usually attached to the first vowel of a diphthong.

INTRODUCTION TO THE CRITICISM

OF THE

TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

CHAPTER I.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.

1. ES God was pleased to make known to man His
purpose of redeeming us through the death of His
Son,-He employed for this end the general laws, and worked
according to the ordinary course of His Providential government,
so far as they were available for the furtherance of His merciful
design. A revelation from heaven, in its very notion, implies
supernatural interposition; yet neither in the first promulgation,
nor in the subsequent propagation of Christ’s religion, can we
mark any waste of miracles. So far as they were needed for the
assurance of honest seekers after truth, they were freely resorted
to: whensoever the principles that move mankind in the affairs
of common life were adequate to the exigences of the case, more
unusual and (as we might have thought) more powerful means
of producing conviction were withheld, as at once superfluous
and ineffectual. Those who heard not Moses and the prophets
would scarcely be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

2. And as it was with respect to the evidences of our faith,
soealso with regard to the volume of Scripture. God willed that
His Church should enjoy the benefit of His written word, at
once as a rule of doctrine and as a guide unto holy living. For

2 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.

this cause He so enlightened the minds of the Apostles and
Evangelists by His Spirit, that they recorded what He had
imprinted on their minds or brought to their remembrance, with-
out the risk of error in anything essential to the verity of the
Gospel. But this main point once secured, the rest was left,
in a great measure, to themselves. The style, the tone, the
language, perhaps the special occasion of writing, seem to have
depended much on the taste and judgment of the several pen-
men. ‘Thus in St Paul’s Epistles we note the profound thinker,
the great scholar, the consummate orator: St John pours forth
the simple utterings of his gentle, untutored, affectionate soul:
in St Peter’s speeches and letters may be traced the impetuous
earnestness of his noble yet not faultless character. Their indi-
vidual tempers and faculties and intellectual habits are clearly
discernible, even while they are speaking to us in the power and
inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

3. Now this self-same parsimony in the employment of
miracles which we observe with reference to Christian evidences
and the inspiration of Scripture, we might look for beforehand,
from the analogy of divine things, when we proceed to consider
the methods by which Scripture has been preserved and handed
down to us. God might, if He would, have stamped His revealed
will visibly on the heavens, that all should read it there: He
might have so completely filled the minds of His servants the
Prophets and Evangelists, that they should have become mere
passive instruments in the promulgation of His counsel, and the
writings they have delivered to us have borne no traces whatever
of their individual characters: but for certain causes that we can
perceive, and doubtless for others beyond the reach of our capa-
cities, He has chosen to do neither the one nor the other. And
so again with the subject we propose to discuss in the present
work ; namely, the relation our existing text of the New Testa-
ment bears to that which originally came from the hands of the
sacred penmen. Their autographs might have been preserved in
the Church as the perfect standards by which all accidental
variations of the numberless copies scattered throughout the
world should be corrected to the end of time: but we know that
these autographs perished utterly in the very infancy of Chris-
tian history. Or if it be too much to expect that the autographs
of the inspired writers should escape the fate which has over-

PRELIMINARY CONSJDERATIONS. 3

taken that of every other known relique of ancient literature,
God might have so guided the hand or fixed the devout atten-
tion of copyists during the long space of fourteen hundred years
before the invention of printing, and of compositors and printers
of the Bible for the last four centuries, that no jot or tittle
should have been changed of all that was written therein. Such
a course of Providential arrangement we must confess to be
quite possible, but it could have been brought about and main-
tained by nothing short of a continuous, unceasing miracle: by
making fallible men (nay, many such in every generation) for
one purpose absolutely infallible. If the complete identity of all
copies of Holy Scripture prove to be a fact, we must of course
receive it as such, and refer it to its sole Author: yet we may
confidently pronounce beforehand, that such a fact could not
have been reasonably anticipated, and is not at all agreeable to
the general tenour of God’s dealings with us.

4. No one who has taken the trouble to examine any two
editions of the Greek New Testament needs be told that this
supposed complete resemblance of various copies of the holy
books is not founded in fact. ven several impressions derived
from the same standard edition, and professing to exhibit a text
positively the same, differ from their archetype and from each
other, in errors of the press which no amount of care or diligence
has yet been able to get rid of. If we extend our researches to
the manuscript copies of Scripture or of its versions which
abound in every great library in Christendom, we see in the
very best of them variations which we must at once impute to
the fault of the scribe, together with many others of a graver
and more perplexing nature, regarding which we can form no
probable judgment, without calling to our aid the resources of
critical learning. The more numerous and venerable the docu-
ments within our reach, the more extensive is the view we
obtain of the variations (or VARIOUS READINGS as they are
called) that prevail in manuscripts. If the number of these vari-
ations was rightly computed at thirty thousand in Mill’s time, a
century and a half ago, they must at present amount to at least
fourfold that quantity.

5. As the New Testament far surpasses all other remains of
antiquity in value and interest, so are the copies of it yet exist-
ing in manuscript and dating from the fourth century of our

1—2

4 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.

era downwards, far more numerous than those of the most cele-
brated writers of Greece or Rome. Such as have been already
discovered and set down in catalogues are hardly fewer than two
thousand; and many more must still linger unknown in the
monastic libraries of the East. On the other hand, manuscripts
of the most illustrious classic poets and philosophers are far
rarer and comparatively modern. We have no complete copy of
Homer himself prior to the thirteenth century, though some con-
siderable fragments have been recently brought to light which
may plausibly be assigned to the fifth century: while more than
one work of high and deserved repute has been preserved to our
times only in a single copy. Now the experience we gain from
a critical examination of the few classical manuscripts that sur-
vive should make us thankful for the quality and abundance of
those of the New Testament. These last present us with a vast
and almost inexhaustible supply of materials for tracing the
history, and upholding (at least within certain limits) the purity
of the sacred text: every copy, if used diligently and with judg-
ment, will contribute somewhat to these ends. So far is the
copiousness of our stores from causing doubt or perplexity to the
genuine student of Holy Scripture, that it leads him to recognise
the more fully its general integrity in the midst of partial varia-
tion. What would the thoughtful reader of Aischylus give for
the like guidance through the obscurities which vex his patience,
and mar his enjoyment of that sublime poet ?

6. In regard to modern works, it is fortunate that the art
of printing has well nigh superseded the use of verbal or (as
it has been termed) Zextuwal criticism. When a book once
issues from the press, its author’s words are for the most part
fixed, beyond all danger of change; graven as with an iron
pen upon the rock for ever. Yet even in modern times, as
in the case of Barrow’s posthumous works and Lord Clarendon’s
History of the Rebellion, it has been occasionally found neces-
sary to correct or enlarge the early editions, from the original
autographs, where they have been preserved. ‘The text of some
of our older English writers (Beaumont and Fletcher’s plays
are a notable instance) would doubtless have been much im-
proved by the same process, had it been possible; but the
criticism of Shakespeare’s dramas is perhaps the most delicate
and difficult problem in the whole history of literature, since

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 5

that great genius was so strangely contemptuous of the praise
of posterity, that even of the few plays that were published in
his lifetime the text seems but a gathering from the scraps of
their respective parts which had been negligently copied out
for the use of the actors.

7. The design of the science of TEXTUAL CRITICISM, as
applied to the Greek New Testament, will now be readily
understood. By collecting and comparing and weighing the
variations of the text to which we have access, it aims at
bringing back that text, so far as may be, to the condition in
which it stood in the sacred autographs; at removing all
spurious additions, if such be found in our present printed
copies; at restoring whatsoever may have been lost or corrupted
or accidentally changed in the lapse of eighteen hundred years.
We need spend no time in proving the importance of such a
science, if it affords us a fair prospect of appreciable results,
resting on grounds of satisfactory evidence. ‘Those who be-
lieve the study of the Scriptures to be alike their duty and
privilege, will surely grudge no pains when called upon to
separate the pure gold of God’s word from the dross which has
mingled with it through the accretions of so many centuries.
Though the criticism of the sacred volume is inferior to its right
interpretation in point of dignity and practical results, yet it
must take precedence in order of time: for how can we reason-
ably proceed to investigate the sense of holy writ, till we have
done our utmost to ascertain its precise language ?

8. The importance of the study of Textual criticism is
sometimes freely admitted by those who deem its successful
cultivation difficult, or its conclusions precarious; the rather as
Biblical scholars of deserved repute are constantly putting forth
their several recensions of the text, differing not a little from
each other. Now on this point it is right to speak clearly
and decidedly. There is certainly nothing in the nature of
critical science which ought to be thought hard or abstruse,
or even remarkably dry and repulsive. It is conversant with
varied, curious, and interesting researches, which have given
a certain serious pleasure to many intelligent minds; it patiently
gathers and arranges those facts of eaternal evidence on which
alone it ventures to construct a revised text, and applies them
according to rules or canons of internal evidence, whether sug-

6 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.

gested by experience, or resting for their proof on the plain
dictates of common sense. The more industry is brought to
these studies, the greater the store of materials accumulated, so
much the more fruitful and trustworthy the results have usually
proved; although beyond question the true application even
of the simplest principles calls for discretion, keenness of intellect,
innate tact ripened by constant use, a sound and impartial
judgment. No man ever attained eminence in this, or any other
worthy accomplishment, without much labour and some natural
aptitude for the pursuit; but the criticism of the Greek Testa-
ment is a field in whose culture the humblest student may
contribute a little that shall be really serviceable; few branches
of theology are able to promise even those who seek but a
moderate acquaintance with it, so early and abundant reward
for their pains.

9. Nor can Textual criticism be reasonably disparaged as
tending to precarious conclusions, or helping to unsettle the
text of Scripture. Even putting the matter on the lowest
ground, critics have not created the variations they have dis-
covered in manuscripts or versions. They have only taught
us how to look ascertained phenomena in the face, and try
to account for them; they would fain lead us to estimate the
relative value of various readings, to decide upon their respective
worth, and thus at length to eliminate them. While we confess
that much remains to be done in this department of Biblical
learning, we are yet bound to say that, chiefly by the exer-
tions of scholars of the last and present generations, the de-
bateable ground is gradually becoming narrower, not a few
strong controversies have been decided beyond hope of reversal,
and while new facts are daily coming to light, critics of very
opposite sympathies are coming to agree better as to the right
mode of classifying and applying them. But even were the
progress of the science less hopeful than we believe it to be,
one great truth is admitted on all hands ;—the almost complete
freedom of Holy Scripture from the bare suspicion of wilful
corruption; the absolute identity of the testimony of every
known copy in respect to doctrine, and spirit, and the main
drift of every argument and every narrative through the entire
volume of Inspiration. On a point of such vital moment I am
glad to cite the well-known and powerful statement of the great

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 7

Bentley, at once the profoundest and the most daring of English
critics: ‘The real text of the sacred writers does not now
(since the originals have been so long lost) lie in any MS. or
edition, but is dispersed in them all. ”Tis competently exact
indeed in the worst MS. now extant; nor is one article of faith
or moral precept either perverted or lost in them; choose as
awkwardly as you will, choose the worst by design, out of
the whole lump of readings.” Or again: ‘“‘ Make your 30,000
[variations] as many more, if numbers of copies can ever reach
that sum: all the better to a knowing and a serious reader,
who is thereby more richly furnished to select what he sees
genuine. But even put them into the hands of a knave or a
fool, and yet with the most sinistrous and absurd choice, he
shall not extinguish the light of any one chapter, nor so dis-
guise Christianity, but that every feature of it will still be
the same!.” Thus hath God’s Providence kept from harm
the treasure of His written word, so far as is needful for the
quiet assurance of His church and people.

10. It is now time for us to afford to the uninitiated
reader some general notion of the nature and extent of the
various readings met with in manuscripts and versions of the
Greek Testament. We shall try to reduce them under a few
distinct heads, reserving all formal discussion of their respec-
tive characters and of the authenticity of the texts we cite
for a later portion of this volume (Chapter rx).

(1). To begin with variations of the gravest kind. In
two, though happily in only two instances, the genuineness
of whole passages of considerable extent, which are read in
in our printed copies of the New Testament, has been brought
into question. These are the weighty and characteristic para-
graphs Mark xvi. 9—16 and John vii. 53—vili. 11. We
shall hereafter defend these passages, the first without the
slightest misgiving, the second to a high degree of probability,
as entitled to be regarded authentic portions of the Gospels
in which they stand.

(2). Akin to these omissions are several considerable in-
terpolations, which though they have never obtained a place

1 « Remarks upon a late Discourse of Free Thinking by Phileleutherus Lip-
siensis,” Part 1. section 32.

8 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.

in the printed text, nor been approved by any critical editor,
are supported by authority too respectable to be set aside with-
out some inquiry. One of the longest and best attested of
these paragraphs has been appended to Matt. xx. 28, and has
been largely borrowed from other passages in the Gospels (see
below, class 9). It appears in several forms, slightly varying
from each other, and is represented as follows in a document
as old as the fifth century:

“ But you, seek ye that from little ΒΒ ye may become
great, and not from great things may become little. Whenever —
ye are invited to the house of a supper, be not sitting down
in the honoured place, lest should come he that is more honoured
than thou, and to thee the Lord of the supper should say, Come
near below, and thou be ashamed in the eyes of the guests.
But if thou sit down in the little place, and he that is less
than thee should come, and to thee the Lord of the supper
shall say, Come near, and come up and sit down, thou also
shalt have more glory in the eyes of the guests!.”

(3). Again, a shorter passage or mere clause, whether in-
serted or not in our printed books, may have appeared originally
in the form of a marginal note, and from the margin have
crept into the text, through the wrong judgment or mere over-
sight of the scribe. Such we have reason to think is the
history of 1 John v. 7, the verse relating to the three heavenly
witnesses, once so earnestly maintained, but now pretty gene-
rally given up as spurious. Thus too Acts viii. 37 may have
been derived from some Church Ordinal: the last clause of
Rom. viii. 1 (μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα)
is much like a gloss on τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ: εἰκῆ in Matt.
v. 22 and ἀναξίως in 1 Cor. xi. 29 might have been inserted
to modify statements that seemed too strong: τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ
πείθεσθαι Gal. iii. 1 is precisely such an addition as would
help to round an abrupt sentence. Some critics would account
in this way for the adoption of the doxology Matt. vi. 13; of
the section relating to the bloody sweat Luke xxii. 43, 44; and
of that remarkable verse, John v. 4: but we may well hesitate
before we so far assent to their views.

1 I cite from Canon Cureton’s very literal translation in his ‘ Remains of a
very antient recension of the four Gospels in Syriac,” in the Preface to which
(pp. xxxv—xxxviii) is an elaborate discussion of the evidence for this passage.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 9

(4). Or a genuine clause is lost by means of what is tech-
nically called Homceoteleuton (ὁμοιοτέλευτον), when the clause
ends in the same word as closed the preceding sentence, and the
transcriber’s eye has wandered from the one to the other, to the
entire omission of the whole passage lying between them. ‘This
source of error is familiar to all who are engaged in copying
writing, and is far more serious than might be supposed, prior to
experience. In 1 John il. 23 6 ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα
ἔχει is omitted in many manuscripts, because τὸν πατέρα ἔχει had
ended the preceding clause: it is not found in our commonly
“received Greek text, and even in the authorised English version
is printed in italics. The whole verse Luke xvii. 36, though
but slenderly supported, may possibly have been early lost
through the same cause, since vv. 34, 35, 36 all end in ἀφεθή-
σεται. Thus perhaps we might defend in Matth. x. 23 the
addition after φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἄλλην of Kav ἐν TH ἑτέρᾳ διώκωσιν
ὑμᾶς, φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἄλλην (ἑτέραν being substituted for the
first ἄλλην), the eye having passed from the first φεύγετε εἰς τὴν
to the second. The same effect is produced, though less fre-
quently, when two or more sentences begin with the same words,
as in Matth. xxii. 14, 15, 16 (each of which commences with
οὐαὶ ὑμῖν), one of the verses being lost in some manuscripts.

(5). Numerous variations occur in the order of words, the
sense being slightly or not at all affected; on which account
this species of various readings was at first much neglected by
collators. Kxamples abound in every page: e.g. Tl μέρος or
μέρος τι Luke xi. 36; ὀνόματι Avaviav or ᾿Ανανίαν ὀνόματι Acts
ix. 12; ψυχρὸς οὔτε ζεστὸς or ζεστὸς οὔτε ψυχρὸς Apoc. iii. 16.
The order of the sacred names Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς is perpetually
changed.

(6). Sometimes the scribe has mistaken one word for ano-
ther, which differs from it only in one or two letters. This
happens chiefly in cases when the wneal or capital letters in
which the oldest manuscripts are written resemble each other,
except in some fine stroke which may have decayed through
age. Hence in Mark v. 14 we find ANHITEIAAN or ATIHT-
TEIAAN; in Luke xvi. 20 HAKQMENOC or EIAKQMENOC ;
so we read Δαυὶδ or Δαβὶδ indifferently, as, in the later or
cursive character, 8 and v have nearly the same shape. Akin
to these errors of the eye are such transpositions as EAABON

10 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.

for €BAAON or €BAAAON, Mark xiv. 65: omissions or
insertions of the same or similar letters, as E€MACCQNTO or
EMACONTO Apoe, xvi. 10: ATAAAIACOHNAI or ATAAAIA-
OHNAI John v. 35; ΠΡΟΕΛΘΩΝ or MPOCEAGQN Matth.
xxvi. 39; Mark xiv. 35: or the dropping or repetition of the
same or a similar syllable, as EXBAAAONTAAAIMONIA or
EKBAAAONTATAAAIMONIA Luke ix. 49; OYAE€AEAOZAC-
TAI or OYAEAOZACTAI 2 Cor, iii. 10; AMAZEZEAEXETO
or AIIEZEAEXETO 1 Peter iii. 20. It is easy to see how the
ancient practice of writing uncial letters without leaving a
space between the words must have increased the risk of such
variations as the foregoing. :

(7). Another source of error is described by some critics as
proceeding ex ore dictantis, in consequence of the scribe writing
from dictation, without having a copy before him. I am not,
however, very willing to believe that manuscripts of the better
class were executed on so slovenly and careless a plan. It seems
more simple to account for the ¢tacisms, or confusion of certain
vowels and diphthongs having nearly the same sound, which
exist more or less in manuscripts of every age, by assuming that
a vicious pronunciation gradually led to a loose mode of ortho-
graphy adapted to it. Certain it is that itacisms are much more
plentiful in the original subscriptions and marginal notes of the
writers of medizval books, than in the text which they copied
from older documents. Itacisms prevailed the most extensively
from the eighth to the twelfth century, but not by any means
during that period exclusively. In the most ancient manuscripts
the principal changes are between ὁ and εἰ, av and e: in later
times 7 ἐ and εἰ, ἢ οἱ and v, even o and o, ἡ and ε are used
almost promiscuously. Hence it arises that a very large portion
of the various readings brought together by collators are of this
description, and although in the vast majority of instances they
serve but to illustrate the character of the manuscripts which
exhibit them, or the fashion of the age in which they were
written, they sometimes affect the grammatical form (e.g. ἔγειρε
or ἔγειραι Mark iii.3 ; Acts iii.6; passim: ἴδετε or εἴδετε Phil. i.
30), or the construction (e.g. ἐάσωμαι or ἰάσομαι Matth. xiii. 15:
οὐ μὴ τιμήσῃ OY οὐ μὴ τιμήσει Matth. xv. 5: ἵνα καυθήσωμαι or
ἵνα καυθήσομαι 1 Cor. xiii, 3, compare 1 Peter iii. 1), or even
the sense (e.g. ἑταίροις or ἑτέροις Matth. xi, 16; μετὰ διωγμῶν

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 11

or, aS in a few copies, μετὰ διωγμὸν Mark x. 30; καυχᾶσθαι
δὴ οὐ συμφέρει or καυχᾶσθαι δεῖ: ov συμφέρ. 2 Cor. xii. 1: ὅτι
χρηστὸς ὁ Κύριος or ὅτι χριστὸς ὁ Κύριος 1 Peter ii. 8). To this
cause we may refer the perpetual interchange of ἡμεῖς and ὑμεῖς,
with their oblique cases, throughout the whole Greek Testa-
ment: e.g. in the single epistle 1 Peter 1. 3; 12; ii. 21 dis;
1: ABRs v.10,

(8). Introductory clauses or Proper Names are frequently
interpolated at the commencement of Church-lessons (περικοπαὶ),
whether from the margin of ordinary manuscripts of the Greek
Testament (where they are usually placed for the convenience of
the reader), or from the Lectionaries or proper Service Books,
especially those of the Gospels (Evangelistaria). Thus in our
English Book of Common Prayer the name of Jesus is intro-
duced into the Gospels for the 14th, 16th, 17th and 18th Sun-
days after Trinity ; and whole clauses into those for the 3rd and
4th Sundays after Easter, and the 6th and 24th after Trinity.
To this cause is due the prefix εἶπε δὲ ὁ Κύριος Luke vii. 31;
and καὶ στραφεὶς πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς εἶπε Luke x. 22; and such
appellations as ἀδελφοὶ or τέκνον τιμόθεε (after od dé in 2 Tim,
iy. 5) in some copies of the Epistles. Hence the frequent inter-
polation (e.g. Matth. iv. 18; viii. 5; xiv. 22) or changed posi-
tion (John i. 44) of Ἰησοῦς.

(9). A more extensive and perplexing species of various
readings arises from bringing into the text of one (chiefly of the
three earlier) Evangelists expressions or whole sentences which
of right belong not to him, but to one or both the others. This
natural tendency to assimilate the several Gospels must have
been aggravated by the laudable efforts of Biblical scholars
(beginning with Tatian’s Ava τεσσάρων in the second century)
to construct a satisfactory Harmony of them all. Some of these
variations also may possibly have been mere marginal notes in
the first instance. Ag examples of this class we will name εἰς
μετάνοιαν interpolated from Luke v. 32 into Matth. ix. 13;
Mark ii.17: the prophetic citation Matth. xxvii. 35 ἵνα πληρωθῇ
k.T.r. to the end of the verse, unquestionably borrowed from
John xix. 24: Mark xii. 14 τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιὴλ Tod προφήτου,
probably taken from Matth. xxiv. 15: Luke v. 38 καὶ ἀμφότεροι
συντηροῦνται from Matth. ix. 17 (where ἀμφότεροι is the true
reading): the whole verse Mark xv. 28 seems spurious, being

12 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.

received from Luke xxii. 37. Even in the same book we observe
an anxiety to harmonise two separate narratives of the same
event, as in Acts ix. 5, 6 compared with xxvi. 14, 15.

(10). In like manner transcribers sometimes quote passages
from the Old Testament more fully than the writers of the New
Testament had judged necessary for their purpose. Thus ἐγγίζει
μοι...-τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν καὶ Matth. xv. 8: ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντε-
τριμμένους τὴν καρδίαν Luke iv. 18: αὐτοῦ ἀκούσεσθε Acts vil.
37: οὐ ψευδομαρτυρήσεις Rom. xiii. 9: καὶ κατέστησας αὐτὸν
ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν σου Hebr. ii. 7: ἢ βολίδι κατατοξευθήσε-
ται Hebr. xii. 20, are all open to suspicion as being genuine
portions of the Old Testament text, but not also of the New.

(11). Synonymous words are often interchanged, and so
form various readings, the sense undergoing some slight and
refined modification, or else being quite unaltered. Thus ἔφη
should be preferred to εἶπεν Matth. xxii. 37, where εἶπεν of the
common text is supported only by one known manuscript, that at
Leicester. Thus also ὀμμάτων is put for ὀφθαλμῶν Matth. ix. 29
by the Codex Bez at Cambridge. In Matth. xxv. 16 the evi-
dence is almost evenly balanced between ἐποίησεν and ἐκέρδησεν
(cf. v.17). Where simple verbs are interchanged with their
compounds (e.g. μετρηθήσεται with ἀντιμετρηθήσεται Matth.
vil. 2; ἐτέλεσεν with συνετέλεσεν thid. v.28; καίεται with κατα-
καίεται xiii. 40), or different tenses of the same verb (e.g.
εἰληφὼς with λαβὼν Acts xvi. 24; ἀνθέστηκε with ἀντέστη
2 Tim. iv. 15) there is usually some ¢nternal reason why one
should be chosen rather than the other, if the external evidence
on the other side does not greatly preponderate. When one of
two terms is employed in a sense peculiar to the New Testament
dialect, the easier synonym may be suspected of having originated
in a gloss or marginal interpretation. Hence ceteris paribus
we should adopt δικαιοσύνην rather than ἐλεημοσύνην in Matth.
vi. 1; ἐσκυλμένοι rather than ἐκλελυμένοι ix. 36; ἀθῶον rather
than δίκαιον xxvii. 4. .

(12). An irregular, obscure, or incomplete construction will
often be explained or supplied in the margin by words that are
subsequently brought into the text. Of this character is ἐμέμ-
ψαντο Mark vii. 2; δέξασθαι ἡμᾶς 2 Cor. vili. 4; γράφω xiii. 2.
Or an elegant Greek idiom may be transformed into simpler
language, as Acts xiv. 3, ἤδεισαν γὰρ πάντες bru" EXAqv ὁ πατὴρ

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 13

αὐτοῦ ὑπῆρχεν for ἤδεισαν yap ἅπαντες τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ ὅτι
“Ἕλλην vajpyev....On the other hand ἃ Hebraism may be soft-
ened by transcribers, as in Matth. xxi. 23, where for ἐλθόντι
αὐτῷ many MSS. prefer the easier ἐλθόντος αὐτοῦ before προσ-
ῆλθεν αὐτῷ διδάσκοντι: and in Matth. xv. 5; Mark vii. 12 (to
which perhaps we may add Luke v. 35), where καὶ is dropped
in some copies to facilitate the sense. This perpetual correction
of harsh, ungrammatical, or Oriental constructions characterises
the printed text of the Apocalypse and the recent MSS. on
which it is founded (e.g. τὴν γυναῖκα ᾿Ιεζαβὴλ τὴν λέγουσαν ii.
20, for ἡ λέγουσα).

(13). Hence too arises the habit of changing ancient dialectic
forms into those in vogue in the transcriber’s age. The whole
subject will be more fitly discussed at length hereafter (Chapter
Vill); we will here merely note a few peculiarities of this kind
adopted by recent critics from the most venerable manuscripts,
but which have gradually though not entirely disappeared in
copies of lower date. Thus in the latest editions Kagapvaovp,
Μαθθαῖος, τέσσερες, ἔνατος are substituted for Καπερναούμ, Ματ-
θαῖος, τέσσαρες, ἔννατος of the common text; οὕτως (not οὕτω) is
used even before a consonant; ἤλθαμεν, ἤλθατε, ἦλθαν, γενάμενος
are preferred to ἤλθομεν, ἤλθετε, ἦλθον, γενόμενος ; ἐκαθερίσθη,
συνζητεῖν, λήμψομαι to ἐκαθαρίσθη, συζητεῖν, λήψομαι; and ν
ἐφελκυστικὸν as it is called is appended to the usual third per-
sons of verbs, even though a consonant follow. On the other
hand the more Attic περυπεπατήκει ought not to be converted
into περιεπεπατήκει in Acts xiv. 8.

(14). Trifling variations in spelling, though very proper to
be noted by a faithful collator, are obviously of little conse-
quence. Such is the choice between καὶ ἐγὼ and κἀγώ, ἐὰν
and ἄν, εὐθέως and εὐθύς, Μωυσῆς and Μωσῆς, or even πράτ-
τουσι and πράσσουσι, εὐδόκησα, εὐκαίρουν and ηὐδόκησα, ηὐκαί-
ρουν. ‘To this head may be referred the question whether ἀλλά,
ye, δέ, Te, μετά, Tapa Ke. should have their final vowel elided
or not when the next word begins with a vowel.

(15). A large portion of our various readings arises from the
omission or insertion of such words as cause little appreciable
difference in the sense. To this class belong the pronouns αὐτοῦ,
αὐτῷ, αὐτῶν, αὐτοῖς, the particles οὖν, δέ, τε, and the interchange of
οὐδὲ and οὔτε, as also of καὶ and δὲ at the opening of a sentence.

14 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.

(16). Manuscripts greatly fluctuate in adding and rejecting
the Greek article, and the sense is often seriously influenced
by these variations, though they seem so minute. In Mark ii.
26 ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιάθαρ ἀρχιέρεως “in the time that Abiathar was
high priest”? would be historically incorrect, while ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιά-
Bap τοῦ ἀρχιέρεως “in the days of Abiathar the high priest”
is suitable enough. ‘The article will often impart vividness and
reality to an expression, where its presence is not indispen-
sable: e.g. Luke xii. 54 τὴν νεφέλην is the peculiar cloud
spoken of in 1 Kings xviii. 44 as portending rain. Bishop
Middleton’s monograph (‘‘ Doctrine of the Greek Article ap-
plied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New Testament”’),
even if its philological groundwork be thought a little preca-
rious, will always be regarded as the text-book on this in-
teresting subject, and is a lasting monument of intellectual
acuteness and exact learning.

(17). Not a few various readings may be imputed to the
peculiarities of the style of writing adopted in the oldest manu-
scripts. Thus MPOCT€ETATMENOYCKAIPOYC Acts xvii. 26
may be divided into two words or three; KAITATANTA δία.
v. 25, by a slight change, has degenerated into κατὰ πάντα.
The habitual abridgement of such words as Θεὸς or Κύριος some-
times leads to a corruption of the text. Hence probably comes
the grave variation OC for OC 1 Tim. iii. 16, and the singular
reading τῷ καιρῷ δουλεύοντες Rom. xii. 11, where the true word
Κυρίῳ was first shortened into KPW!, and then read as K,PW,
K, being employed to indicate KAI in very early times. Or
a large initial letter, which the scribe usually reserved for a
subsequent revision, may have been altogether neglected:
whence we have te for Oru before στενὴ Matth. vii. 14. Or
—, placed over a letter (especially at the end of a line) to
denote v, may have been lost sight of; e.g. λίθον μέγα
Matth. xxvii. 60 in several copies, for ΜΈΓΑ. It will be seen
hereafter that as the earliest manuscripts have few marks of
punctuation, breathing or accent, these points (often far from
indifferent) must be left in a great measure to an editor's taste
and judgment.

1 Tischendorf indeed (Nov. Test. 1859) saye, ‘KY PI@ omnino scribi solet Ko,”
and this no doubt is the usual form, even in MSS. which have xpw mu, as well as

χω τυ, for χριστῷ ἰησοῦ.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 15

(18). Slips of the pen, whereby words are manifestly lost
or repeated, mis-spelt or half-finished, though of no service to
the critic, must yet be noted by a faithful collator, as they
will occasionally throw light on the history of some parti-
cular copy in connection with others, and always indicate the
degree of care or skill employed by the scribe, and conse-
quently the weight due to his general testimony.

The great mass of various readings we have hitherto at-
tempted to classify (to our first and second heads we will recur
presently) are manifestly due to mere inadvertence or human
frailty, and certainly cannot be imputed to any deliberate in-
tention of transcribers to tamper with the text of Scripture.
We must give a different account of a few passages (we are
glad they are only a few) which yet remain to be noticed.

(19). The copyist may be tempted to forsake his proper
function for that of a reviser, or critical corrector. He may
simply omit what he does not understand (e.g. τὸ μαρτύριον
1 Tim. ii. 6), or may attempt to get over a difficulty by
inversions and other changes. Thus the μυστήριον spoken of
by St Paul 1 Cor. xv. 51, which rightly stands in the received
text πάντες μὲν οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα
was easily varied into πάντες κοιμηθησόμεθα, οὐ π. δὲ ἀλ., as
if in mere perplexity. From this source must arise the omis-
sion in a few manuscripts of υἱοῦ Βαραχίου in Matth. xxiii. 35;
of Ἱερεμίου in Matth. xxvii. 9; the substitution of τοῖς προφή-
ταῖς for Ἡσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ in Mark i. 2; perhaps of οὔπω
ἀναβαίνω for οὐκ ἀναβαίνω in John vii. 8, and certainly of τρίτη
for ἕκτη John xix. 14. The variations between Τεργεσηνῶν and
Ταδαρηνῶν Matth. viii. 28, and between Βηθαβαρᾶ and Βηθανίᾳ
John i. 28, have been attributed, we should hope unjustly, to
the misplaced conjectures of Origen.

Some would impute such readings as ἔχωμεν for ἔχομεν
Rom. v. 1; φορέσωμεν for φορέσομεν 1 Cor. xv. 49, to a desire
on the part of copyists to ¢mprove an assertion into an ethical
exhortation, especially in the Apostolical Epistles; but it is at
once safer and more simple to regard them with Canon Words-
worth (N. T. 1 Cor. xv. 49) as instances of ztacism: see class (7)
above.

(20). Finally, whatever conclusion we arrive at respecting
the true reading in the following passages, the discrepancy could

18... PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.

hardly have arisen except from doctrinal preconceptions. Matth.
xix. 17 Τί pe λέγεις ἀγαθόν ; οὐδεὶς ὠγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς, ὁ θεός"
or Ti με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ; εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ ἀγαθός : John 1. 18
ὁ μονογενὴς vids OY ὁ μονογενὴς θεός: Acts xvi. 7 τὸ πνεῦμα
with or without the addition of ᾿Ιησοῦ: Acts xx. 28 τὴν ἐκ-
κλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ or τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Kupiov: perhaps also
Jude v. 4 δεσπότην with or without Θεόν. I do not mention
Mark xiii. 32 οὐδὲ 6 vids, as there is hardly any authority for
its rejection now extant; nor Luke 11, 22, where τοῦ καθαρισ-
μοῦ αὐτῆς of the Complutensian Polyglott and most of our com-
mon editions is supported by almost no evidence whatever.

11. Itis very possible that some scattered readings cannot
be reduced to any of the above-named classes, but enough has
been said to afford the student some general notion of the na-
ture and extent of the subject}. It may be reasonably thought
that a portion of these variations, and those among the most
considerable, had their origin in a cause which must have ope-
rated at least as much in ancient as in modern times, the
changes gradually introduced after publication by the authors
themselves into the various copies yet within their reach. Such
revised copies would circulate independently of those issued
previously, and now beyond the writer’s control; and thus be-
coming the parents of a new family of copies, would originate
and keep up diversities from the first edition, without any fault
on the part of transcribers*, It is thus perhaps we may best
account for the omission or insertion of whole paragraphs or
verses in manuscripts of a certain class [see above (1), (2), (3)];
or, in cases where the work was in much request, for those
minute touches and trifling improvements in words, in construc-
tion, in tone, or in the mere colouring of the style [(5), (11), (12)]
which few authors can help attempting, when engaged on re-
vising their favourite compositions.

1 Dr Tregelles, to whose persevering labours in sacred criticism I am anxious, -
once for all, to express my deepest obligations, ranges various readings under three
general heads :—substitutions ; additions; omissions. I do not find, however, that
an arrangement seemingly so simple enables the student to gain more distinct
views of this complicated subject.

3 This source of variations, though not easily discriminated from others, must
have suggested itself to many minds, and is well touched upon by Isaac Taylor in
his ‘* History of the Transmission of Antient Books to modern times,” 1827, p. 24.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 17

12. The fullest critical edition of the Greek Testament
hitherto published contains but a comparatively small portion
of the whole mass of variations already known; as a rule the
editors neglect, and rightly neglect, mere errors of transcription.
Such things must be recorded for several reasons, but neither
they, nor real various readings that are slenderly supported, can
produce any effect in the task of amending or restoring the
sacred text. Those who wish to see for themselves how far the
common printed editions of what is called the “textus receptus”’
differ from the judgment of the most recent critics, may refer if
they please to the small Greek Testament lately published in
the series of ‘“‘Cambridge Greek and Latin Texts'’,’ which
exhibits in a thicker type all words and clauses wherein Robert
Stephens’ edition of 1550 (which is taken as a convenient
standard) differs from the other chief modifications of the textus
receptus (viz. Beza’s 1565 and Elzevirs’ 1624), as also from the
revised texts of Lachmann 1842—50, of Tischendorf 1859, and
of Tregelles 1844, 1857. The student will thus be enabled
to estimate for himself the limits within which the text of the
Greek Testament may be regarded as still open to discussion,
and to take a general survey of the questions on which the
theologian is bound to form an intelligent opinion.

13. The work that lies before us naturally divides itself
into three distinct parts.

I. A description of the sources from which various readings
are derived (or of their EXTERNAL EVIDENCE), comprising

(a) Manuscripts of the Greek New Testament or of por-
tions thereof (Chapter 11).

(b) Ancient versions of the New Testament in various
languages (Chapter IIT).

(c) Citations from the Greek Testament or its versions
made by early ecclesiastical writers, especially by
the Fathers of the Christian Church (Chapter Iv).

(4) Early printed or later critical editions of the Greek
Testament (Chapter v).

1 Novum Testamentum Texttis Stephanici A.D. 1550...curante Εἰ, H. Scrivener.
Cantabr. 1860,” 12mo.

18 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS,

II.. A discussion of the principles on which external
evidence should be applied to the recension of the sacred volume,
embracing

(a) The laws of INTERNAL EVIDENCE, and the limits of
their legitimate use (Chapter vi).

(6) The history of the text and of the principal schemes
which have been proposed for restoring it to its
primitive state, including recent views of Compa-
rative Criticism (Chapter Vit).

(c) Considerations derived from the peculiar character
and grammatical form of the dialect of the Greek
Testament (Chapter VIII).

III. The application of the foregoing materials and princi-
ples to the investigation of the true reading in the chief passages
of the New Testament, on which authorities are at variance
(Chapter 1x).

It will be found desirable to read the following pages in the
order wherein they stand, although the last two sections of
Chap. 11. and some portions elsewhere (indicated by being
printed like them in smaller type) are obviously intended chiefly
for reference.

CHAPTER II.

ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT.

BM the extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament
supply both the most copious and the purest sources of
Textual Criticism, we propose to present to the reader some
account of their peculiarities in regard to material, form, style of
writing, date and contents, before we enter into details respecting
individual copies, under the several subdivisions to which it is
usual to refer them.

Section I.

On the general character of Manuscripts of the Greek
Testament.

1. The subject of the present section has been systemati-
cally discussed in the “ Palaeographia Graeca” (Paris, 1708,
folio) of Bernard de Montfaucon [1655—17411], the most illus-
trious member of the learned Society of the Benedictines of St
Maur. This truly great work, although its materials are rather too
exclusively drawn from manuscripts deposited in French libraries,
and its many illustrative facsimiles somewhat rudely engraved,
still remains our best authority on all points relating to Greek
Manuscripts, even after more recent discoveries, especially among
the papyri of Egypt and Herculaneum, have necessarily modi-
fied not a few of its statements. The four splendid volumes of
M. J. B. Silvestre’s “ Paléographie Universelle”’ (Paris, 1839,

1 Tn this manner we propose to indicate the dates of the birth and death of the

2
-----

θ΄. - ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

&c. folio) afford us no less than forty-one coloured specimens of
the Greek writing of various ages, sumptuously executed ; though
the accompanying letter-press descriptions, by F. and A. Cham-
pollion Fils, seem in this branch of the subject a little dis-
appointing; nor are the valuable notes appended to his translation
of their work by Sir Frederick Madden (London, 2 vol. 1850,
8vo) sufficiently numerous or elaborate to supply the Champol-
lions’ defects. Much, however, may also be learnt from the
“ Herculanensium voluminum que supersunt” (Naples, 10 tom.
1793—1850, fol.) ; from Mr Babington’s three volumes of papyrus
fragments of Hyperides, respectively published in 1850, 1853
and 1858; and especially from the Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s
editions of the Codices Ephraemi (1843), Friderico-Augustanus
(1846), Claromontanus (1852), and those other like publications
(e.g. Monumenta sacra inedita 1846, 1855 ἄς. and Anecdota
sacra et profana 1855) which have rendered his name the very
highest among living scholars in this department of sacred
literature. What I have been able to add from my own observa-
tion, has been gathered from the study of Biblical manuscripts
now in England.

2. Stone, wood, tablets covered with wax, the bark of
trees, the dressed skins of animals, the reed papyrus, paper
made of cotton or linen, are the chief materials on which
writing has been impressed at different periods and stages of
civilisation. The most ancient manuscripts of the New Testa-
ment now existing are composed of vellum or parchment (mem-
brana), the term vellum being strictly applied to the delicate
skins of very young calves; and parchment (which seems to be
a corruption of charta pergamena, a name first given to skins
prepared by some improved process for Eumenes, king of
Pergamus, about B.c. 150) to the integuments of sheep or goats.
In judging of the date of a manuscript written on skins, atten-
tion must be paid to the quality of the material, the oldest being
almost invariably described on the thinnest and whitest vellum
that could be procured; while manuscripts of later ages, being
usually composed of parchment, are thick, discoloured, and
coarsely grained. ‘Thus the Codex Friderico-Augustanus of the
fourth century is made of the finest skins of antelopes, the
leaves being so large, that a single animal would furnish only

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 21

two (Tischendorf, Prolegomena, § 1). Its contemporary, the
far-famed Codex Vaticanus, challenges universal admiration for
the beauty of its vellum: every visitor at the British Museum
can observe the excellence of that of the Codex Alexandrinus of
the fifth century: that of the Codex Claromontanus of the sixth
century is no less remarkable: the material of those purple-dyed
fragments of the Gospels which Tischendorf denominates N,
also of the sixth century, is so subtle and delicate, that some
persons have mistaken the leaves preserved in England (Brit,
Mus. Cotton, Titus C xv) for Egyptian papyrus. Paper made
of cotton (charta bombycina, called also charta Damascena from
its place of manufacture) may have been fabricated in the ninth!
or tenth century, and linen paper (charta proper) as early as the
twelth; but they were seldom used for Biblical manuscripts
earlier than the thirteenth, and had not entirely displaced
parchment at the ewra of the invention of printing, about A.D.
1450. Cotton paper is for the most part easily distinguished
from linen by its roughness and coarse fibre; some of the early
linen paper, both glazed and unglazed, is of a very fine texture,
though perhaps a little too stout and crisp for convenient use,
Lost portions of parchment or vellum manuscripts are often
supplied in paper by some later hand; and the Codex Leices-
trensis of the fourteenth century is unique in this respect,
being composed of a mixture of inferior vellum and worse paper,
regularly arranged in the proportion of two parchment to
three paper leaves, recurring alternately throughout the whole
volume.

3. Although parchment was in occasional, if not familiar, use
at the period when the New Testament was written (τὰ βιβλία,
μάλιστα τὰς μεμβράνας, 2 Tim. iv. 13), yet the cheaper and
more perishable papyrus of Egypt was chiefly employed for
ordinary purposes, and was probably what is meant by χάρτης
in 2 John v. 12. This vegetable production had been long used
for literary purposes in the time of Herodotus (B.c. 440), and
that not only in Egypt (Herod. Hist. 11. 100) but elsewhere, for

1 Tischendorf (Notitia Codicis Sinaitici, p. 54) has recently taken to St Peters-
burg a fragment of a Lectionary, which cannot well be assigned to a later date
than the ninth century, among whose parchment leaves are inserted two of cotton
paper, manifestly written on by the original scribe.

22 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

he expressly states that the Ionians, for lack of byblus!, had
been compelled to have recourse to the skins of goats and sheep
(v. 58). We find a minute, if not a very clear, description of
the mode of preparing the papyrus for the scribe in the works of
the elder Pliny (Hist. Nat. 1. x1.c.11, 12). Its frail and
brittle quality has no doubt caused us the loss of some of the
choicest treasures of ancient literature; the papyri which yet
survive in the museums of Europe owe their preservation to the
accidental circumstance of having been buried in the tombs of
the Thebais, or beneath the wreck of Herculaneum. As we
before intimated, no existing manuscript of the New Testament
is written on papyrus, nor can the earliest we possess on vellum
be dated higher than the middle of the fourth century.

4. We have some grounds for suspecting that papyrus was
not over plentiful even in the best times of the Roman dominion;
and it may be readily imagined that vellum (especially that
fine sort by praiseworthy custom required for copies of Holy
Scripture) could never have been otherwise than scarce and
dear. Hence arose, at a very early period of the Christian era,
the practice and almost the necessity of erasing ancient writing
from skins, in order to make room for works in which the living
generation felt more interest. This process of destruction, how-
ever, was seldom so fully carried out, but that the strokes of the
elder hand might still be traced, more or less completely, under
the more modern writing. Such manuscripts are called codices
rescriptt or palimpsests (παλίμψηστα), and several of the most
precious monuments of sacred learning are of this description.
The Codex Ephraemi at Paris contains large fragments both of
the Old and New Testament under the later Greek works of
St Ephraem the Syrian: and the Codex Nitriensis, recently
disinterred from a monastery in the Egyptian desert and brought
to the British Museum, comprises a portion of St Luke’s Gospel,
nearly obliterated, and covered over by a Syriac treatise of
Severus of Antioch against Grammaticus, comparatively of no
value whatever. It will be easily believed that the collating or
transcribing of palimpsests has cost much toil and patience to

1 Herodotus calls the whole plant byblus (11. 92), but Theophrastus (Hist. Plant.
IV. 9) papyrus, reserving the term βίβλος for the liber, the inner rind, from which
alone the writing material was fabricated.

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 23

those whose loving zeal has led them to the attempt: and after
all their true readings will be sometimes (not often) rather
uncertain, even though chemical mixtures (such as prussiate of
potash or the tinctura G'iobertina) have recently been applied,
with much success, to restore the faded lines and letters of these
venerable records.

5. We need say but little of a practice which St Jerome!
and others speak of as prevalent towards the end of the fourth
century, that of dyeing the vellum purple, and of stamping rather
than writing the letters in silver and gold. The Cotton fragment
of the Gospels, mentioned above (p. 21), is one of the few
remaining copies of this kind, and it is not unlikely that the
great Dublin palimpsest of St Matthew owes its present wretched
discolouration to some such dye. But, as Davidson sensibly
observes, “the value of a Manuscript does not depend on such
things” (Biblical Criticism, vol. 11. p. 264). We care for them
only as they serve to indicate the reverence paid to the Scriptures
by men of old. The style, however, of the pictures, illustrations,
arabesques and initial ornaments that prevail in later copies
from the eighth century downwards, whose colours and gilding
are sometimes as fresh and bright as if laid on but yesterday,
will not only interest the student by tending to throw light on
medieval art and habits and modes of thought, but will often
fix the date of the books which contain them with a precision
otherwise quite beyond our reach.

6. The ink used in the most ancient Manuscripts has
unfortunately for the most part turned red or brown, or very
pale, or peeled off, or eaten through the vellum; so that in many
cases (as in the Codex Vaticanus itself) a later hand has ruth-
lessly retraced the letters, and given a false semblance of coarse-
ness or carelessness to the original writing. In such instances
a few passages will usually remain untouched, just as the first
scribe left them, and from the study of these a right notion can
be formed of the primitive condition of the rest: see, for
example, the two facsimile plates (63, 64) of the Coislin MS.
(H) of St Paul’s Epistles in Silvestre’s Paléographie Universelle.

1 “ Habeant qui volunt veteres libros, vel in membranis purpureis auro argen-
toque descriptos.” Preef. in Job.

24 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

From the seventh century downwards it is said that the ingre-
dients of ink have but little changed. The base has been soot,
or lamp-black made of burnt shavings’ of ivory, mixed with
wine-lees or gum, and subsequently sepia or alum. Vitriol and
gall-nuts are now added, the mineral serving to fix the vegetable
ingredients. In many manuscripts of about the twelfth century
(e.g. Gonville and Caius MS., 59 of the Gospels) we observe
what seems to be, and very well may be, the Indian ink of
commerce, still preserving a beautiful jet black on the inner and
smoother side of the parchment, and washed out rather than
erased, whenever corrections were desired. The coloured inks
(red, green, blue or purple) are often quite brilliant to this day:
the four red lines which stand at the head of each column of
the first page of the Codex Alexandrinus are far more legible
than the portions in black ink below them, yet are undoubtedly
written by the same hand.

7. While papyrus (χάρτης) remained in common use, the chief
instrument employed was probably a reed (κάλαμος, 3 Johnv. 13),
such as are common in the East at present: a few existing manu-
scripts (6. g. the Codd. Leicestrensis and Lambeth 1350) appear
to have been thus written. Yet the firmness and regularity of the
strokes, which often remain impressed on the vellum or paper
after the ink has utterly gone, prove that in the great majority
of cases a metal pen (stylus) was preferred. We must add to
our list of writing materials a bodkin or needle (acus), by means
of which and aruler the blank leaf was carefully divided into
columns and lines, whose regularity much enhances the beauty of
our best copies. The vestiges of such points and marks may yet
be seen deeply indented on the surface of nearly all manuscripts,
those on one side of each leaf being usually sufficiently visible
to guide the scribe when he came to write on the reverse.

8. Little needs be said respecting the form of manuscripts,
which in this particular much resemble printed books. A few
are in large folio; the greater part in small folio or quarto, the
prevailing shape being a quarto, whose height but little exceeds
its breadth; some are octavo, an inconsiderable number smaller
still. In some copies the sheets have marks in the lower margin of
their first or last pages, like the s‘gnatures of a modern volume, the

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 25

folio at intervals of four, the quarto at intervals of eight leaves!,
as in the Codex Augiensis of St Paul’s Epistles (F). Not to
speak at present of those manuscripts which have a Latin
translation in a column parallel to the Greek, as the Codex
Bezae, the Codex Laudianus of the Acts, and the Codices Claro-
montanus and Augiensis of St Paul, many copies of every age
have two Greek columns on each page; of these the Codex
Alexandrinus is the oldest: the Codex Vaticanus has three
columns on a page, the Codex Friderico-Augustanus four. The
unique arrangement? of these last two has been urged as an
argument for their higher antiquity, as if they were designed to
imitate rolled books, whose several skins or leaves were fastened
together lengthwise, so that their contents always appeared in
parallel columns; they were kept in scrolls which were unrolled
at one end for reading, and when read rolled up at the other.
This fashion prevails in the papyrus fragments yet remaining,
and in the most venerated copies of the Old Testament preserved
in Jewish synagogues.

9. We now approach a more important question, the style
of writing adopted in manuscripts, and the shapes of the several
letters. These varied widely in different ages, and form the
simplest and surest criteria for approximating to the date of the
documents themselves. It will prove convenient to abide by
the usual division of Greek characters into uncial’ and cursive ;

1 Eusebius sent to Constantine’s new city (Euseb. Vit. Const. Lib. Iv.) πεντήκοντα
σωμάτια ἐν διφθέραις (c. 36)...€v πολυτελῶς ἠσκημένοις τεύχεσι τρισσὰ Kal τετρασσὰ
(c. 37): on which last words Valesius notes, ‘ Codices enim membranacei feré per
quaterniones digerebantur, hoc est quatuor folia simul compacta, ut terniones tria
sunt folia simul compacta. Et quaterniones quidem sedecim habebant paginas,
terniones vero duodenas.”

2 The manuscript in four columns is quite unique, but besides the Cod. Vati-
canus, the Vatican Dio Cassius and two copies of the Samaritan Pentateuch at
Nablous are stated by Tischendorf (Cod. Frid-Aug. Proleg. § 11) to be arranged
in three columns. He has more recently discovered a similar arrangement in two
palimpsest leaves of Religious Meditations from which he gives extracts (Not.
Cod. Sinait. p. 49); in a Latin fragment of the Pentateuch ; in a Greek Evange-
listarium of the eighth century; and a Patristic manuscript at Patmos of the
ninth (ibid. p. 10) ; so that the argument drawn from the triple columns must not
be pressed too far.

3“ Uncialibus, ut vulgo aiunt, literis, onera magis exarata, quam codices”
Hieronymi Pref. in Job. From this passage the term uncial seems to be derived,
uncia (an inch) referring to the size of the characters. The conjectural reading

20 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

uncial manuscripts being written in what have since been
regarded as capital letters, formed separately, having no con-
nection with each other, and (in the earlier specimens) without
any space between the words, the marks of punctuation being
few: the cursive or running and comprising letters more easily
and rapidly made, those in the same word being usually joined
together, with a complete system of punctuation not widely
removed from that of printed books. Speaking generally, and
limiting our statement to Greek manuscripts of the New Testa-
ment, uncial letters prevailed from the fourth to the tenth, or (in
the case of liturgical books) as late as the eleventh century;
cursive letters were employed as early as the ninth or tenth
century, and continued in use until the invention of printing
superseded the humble labours of the scribe.

But besides the broad and palpable distinction between
uncial and cursive letters, persons who have had much experience
in the study of manuscripts are able to distinguish those of each
class from one another in respect of style and character; so that
the exact period at which each was written can be determined
within certain inconsiderable limits. After the tenth century
many manuscripts bear dates, and such become standards to
which we can refer others resembling them that are undated.
But since the earliest dated Biblical manuscript yet discovered
(Vatican. 354 or § of the Gospels) was written A.D. 949; we
must resort to other means for estimating the age of more vener-
able, and therefore more important, copies. By studying the style
and shape of the letters on Greek inscriptions, Montfaucon was
led to conclude that the more simple, upright, and regular the form
of uncial letters; the less flourish or ornament they exhibit; the
nearer their breadth is equal to their height; so much the more
ancient they ought to be considered. ‘These results have been
signally confirmed by the subsequent discovery of Greek papyri
in Egyptian tombs, which vary in age from the third century
before the Christian era to the third century after that epoch;
and yet further from numerous fragments of Philodemus, of
Kpicurus, and other philosophers, which were buried in the ruins
of Herculaneum A.p. 79. ‘The evidence of these papyri, indeed,
is even more weighty than that of inscriptions, inasmuch as

‘< jnitialibus” will most approve itself to those who are familiar with the small
Latin writing of the middle ages, in which ¢ is undotted, and δ much like ¢.

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 27

workers in stone were often compelled to prefer straight lines, as
bette? adapted to the hardness of their material, where writings
on papyrus or vellum would naturally flow into curves.

10. While we freely grant that a certain tact, the fruit of
study and minute observation, can alone make us capable of
forming a trustworthy opinion on the age of manuscripts; it is
worth while to point out the principles on which a true judg-
ment must be grounded, and to submit to the reader a few
leading facts, which his own research may hereafter enable him
to apply and even to extend.

The first three plates at the end of this volume represent the
Greek alphabet, as found in the seven following monuments:

(1). The celebrated Rosetta stone, discovered near that place
during the French occupation in 1799, and now in the British
Museum. This most important inscription, which in the hands
of Young and Champollion has proved the key to the mysteries
of Egyptian hieroglyhics, records events of no intrinsic conse-
quence that occurred B.c. 196, in the reign of Ptolemy V.
Epiphanes. It is written in the three forms of hieroglyphics,
of the demotic or common character of the country, and of
Greek uncials, which last may represent the /apidary style of
the second century before our era. The words are undivided,
without breathings, accents, or marks of punctuation, and the
uncial letters (excepting ἘΞ for Zeta) approach very nearly to
our modern capital type. In shape they are simple, perhaps
a little rude; rather square than oblong; and as the carver on
this hard black stone was obliged to avoid curve lines when-
ever he could, the forms of E, 3 and & differ considerably from
the specimens we shall produce from documents described on
soft materials.

(2). The Codex Friderico-Augustanus of the fourth century,
published in lithographed facsimile in 1846, contains on 43
leaves fragments of the Septuagint version, chiefly from
1 Chronicles and Jeremiah, with Nehemiah and Esther com-
plete, in oblong folio, with four columns on each page. It is so
carefully executed that the very form of the ancient letters and
the colour of the ink are represented to us by Tischendorf, who

28 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

discovered it in the East. Two years ago the same indefatigable
scholar brought to Europe the remainder of this manuscript,
which seems as old as the fourth century and perhaps anterior to
the Codex Vaticanus itself, and purposes to publish it, in fac-
simile type cast for the purpose, 4 tom., with twenty pages
lithographed or photographed, in 1862, at the expense of the
Emperor of Russia, to whom the original belongs. This book,
which Tischendorf now calls Codex Sinaiticus, contains, besides
much more of the Septuagint, the whole New Testament with
Barnabas’ Epistle and Hermas’ Shepherd annexed. As a kind
of avant-courter to his great work he has put forth a tract
entitled, “ Notitia Editionis Codicis Bibliorwm Sinaitici Auspi-
ciis Imperatoris Alexandri II. suscepte’’ (Leipsic, 1860), from
which we have derived the account of the manuscript given in
the opening of the next section of this chapter, under the appel-
lation of Aleph (δ), assigned to it by Tischendorf, in the
exercise of his right as its discoverer.

(3).

). Codex Alexandrinus of the fifth century (A).
(4)

Codex Purpureus Cotton: N of the Gospels. ) of the

(5). Codex Nitriensis Rescriptus, R of the Gospels + sixth
(6).
(7)

Codex Dublinensis Rescriptus, Z of theGospels) century.

Evangelistarium Harleian. 5598, dated A.p. 995.

These manuscripts will be more fully described in the suc-
ceeding sections of the chapter. At present we wish to compare
them with each other for the purpose of tracing, as closely as we
may, the different styles and fashions of uncial letters which
prevailed from the fourth to the tenth or eleventh century of the
Christian era. The varying fashions of cursive manuscripts
cannot so well be seen by exhibiting their alphabets, for since
each letter is for the most part joined to the others in the
same word, connected passages will alone afford us a correct
notion of their character and general features. For the moment
we are considering the uncials alone.

If the Rosetta stone, by its necessary avoiding of curve lines,
so far fails to give us a correct notion of the manner adopted in
common writing, it resembles our earliest uncials at least in
one respect, that the letters, being as broad as they are high,

-OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 29

are all capable of being included within circumscribed squares.
Indeed, yet earlier inscriptions are found almost totally destitute
of curves, even O and © being represented by simple squares,
with or without a bisecting horizontal line (see theta, p. 32)?.
The Herculanean papyri, however, (a specimen of which we have
given in facsimile 10, Plate 1v), is much better suited than
inscriptions can be for comparison with our earliest copies of
Scripture2. Nothing can well be conceived more elegant than
these simply-formed graceful little letters (somewhat diminished
in size perhaps by the effects of heat) running across the
volume, 39 lines in a column, without capitals or breaks be-
tween the words. ‘There are scarcely any stops, no breathings,
accents, or marks of any kind; only that >, < or > are now
and then found at the end of a line, to fill up the space, or to
join a word or syllable with what follows. A very few abbre-
viations occur, such as τῇ in the first line of our specimen, taken
from Philodemus περὶ κακιῶν (Hercul. Volum. Tom. 1. Col.
xx. ll. 6—15), the very treatise to which Tischendorf compared
his Cod. Frederico-Augustanus (Proleg. § 11). The papyri,
buried for so many ages from A.D. 79 downwards, may probably
be a century older still, since Philodemus the Epicurean was
the contemporary and almost the friend of Cicero*. Hence from
three to four hundred years must have elapsed betwixt the
writing of the Herculanean rolls and of our earliest Biblical
manuscripts ; yet the fashion of writing changed but little during
the interval, far less in every respect than in the four centuries
which next followed; wherein the plain, firm, upright and
square uncials were giving place to the compressed, oblong,
ornamented or even sloping forms which predominate from the
seventh or eighth century downwards. While advising the reader
to exercise his skill on facsimiles of entire passages, especially
in contrasting the lines from Philodemus (No. 10), with those

1 The Cotton fragment of the book of Genesis of the fifth century, whose poor
shrivelled remains from the fire of 1731 are still preserved in the British Museum,
while in common with all other manuscripts it exhibits the round shapes of O and
©, substitutes a lozenge Ὁ for the circle in phi, after the older fashion ().

2 Our facsimile is borrowed from the Neapolitan volumes, but Plate 57 in the
Paléographie Universelle φιλοδηήμου περι μουσικὴ has the advantage of colowrs for
giving a lively idea of the present charred appearance of these papyri.

3 Cicero de Finibus, Lib. 11. c. 35. The same person is apparently meant in
Ovat. in Pisonem, cc. 28, 29.

30 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

from the oldest uncials of the New Testament (Nos. 11—14;
17—20; 24) ; we purpose to examine the several alphabets (Nos.
1—7) letter by letter, pointing out to the student those varia-
tions in shape which paleographers have judged the safest
criteria of their relative ages. Alpha, delta, theta, xt, pi, omega
are among the best tests for this purpose.

Alpha is not often found in its present familiar shape, except in
inscriptions, where the cross line is sometimes broken into an angle
with the vertex downwards (4): even on the Rosetta stone the left
limb leans against the upper part of the right limb, but does not
form an angle with its extremity, while the cross line, springing not
far from the bottom of the left limb, ascends to meet the right about
half way down. Modifications of this form may be seen in the
Herculanean rolls, only that the cross line more nearly approaches
the horizontal, and sometimes is almost entirely so. The Cod.
Frid-August.’ does not vary much from this form, but the three
generating lines are often somewhat curved. In other books while
the right limb is quite straight, the left and cross line form a kind of
loop or curve, as is very observable in the Nitrian fragment R, and
often in Codd. Alex., Ephraemi, Bezae, and in the Vatican more
frequently still, in all which alpha often approximates to the shape of
our English a. And this curve may be regarded as a proof of anti-
quity. Cod. N (which is more recent than those named above)
makes the two lines on the left form a sharp angle, as do the Cotton
fragment of Genesis (see p. 28, note 1) and Cod. Claromontanus
No. 19, only that the lines which form the angle in this last are very
fine. In later times, as the letters grew tall and narrow, the modern
type of A became more marked, as in the first letter of Arundel 547
(No. 16), of about the 10th century, though the form and thickness seen
in the Cod. Claromontanus continued much in vogue to the last. Yet
alpha even in Cod. Claromontanus and Cotton Genesis occasionally
passes from the angle into the loop, though not so often as in Cod,
A and its companions. Cod. Borgianus (T), early in the fifth cen-
tury, exaggerated this loop into a large ellipse, if Giorgi’s facsimile
may be trusted. In Cod. Laudianus E of the Acts and Cureton’s
palimpsest Homer too the loop is very decided, the Greek and
Latin @ in Laud. (No. 25) being alike. Mark also its form in the
papyrus scrawl No. 9 (from one of the orations of Hyperides edited
by Mr Babington), which may be as old as the Rosetta stone. The
angular shape adopted in Cod. Z (Nos. 6, 18) is ugly enough, and
(I believe) unique.

Beta varies less than Alpha. Originally it consisted of a tall
perpendicular line, on the right side of which four straight lines are

1 We prefer citing Cod. Frid-August., because our examples have been
actually taken from its exquisitely lithographed pages; but the facsimile of part
of a page from Luke xxiv. represented in the Notitia Cod, Sinaitici, from which
we have borrowed six lines (No. 11 b), will be seen to resemble exactly the portion

published in 1846.

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 31

so placed as to form two triangles, whereof the vertical line forms
the bases, but a small portion of the vertical line entirely separates
the triangles (5). This ungraceful figure was modified very early, even
in inscriptions. On the Rosetta stone (No. 1) the triangles are rounded
off into semicircles, and the lower end of the vertical curved. Yet
the shape in manuscripts is not quite so elegant. The lower curve is
usually the larger, and the curves rarely touch each other. Such are
Codd. ANRZ and the Cotton Genesis. In the Herculanean rolls
the letter comes near the common cursive β, in some others its shape
is quite like the modern B. When oblong letters became common,
the top (e.g. Cod. Bezae) and bottom extremities of the curve ran
into straight lines, by way of return into the primitive shape (see
No. 32, dated 980). In the very early papyrus fragment of Hyperi-
des it looks like the English R standing on a base (No. 9, 1. 4. But
this specimen rather belongs to the semi-cursive hand of common
life, than to that of books.

Gamma in its simplest form consists of two lines of equal thick-
ness, the shorter so placed upon the longer, which is vertical, as to
make one right angle with it on the right side. Thus we find it in
the Rosetta stone, the papyrus of Hyperides, the Herculanean rolls
and very often in Cod. A. The next step was to make the hori-
zontal line very thin, and to strengthen its extremity by a point, or
knob, as in Codd. Ephraemi, RZ: or the point was thus strengthened
without thinning the line, e.g. Codd. Vatican., N and most later
copies, such as Harl. 5598 (No. 7) or its contemporary Parham 18
(No. 32). In Cod. Bezae gamma much resembles the Latin r.

Delta should be closely scrutinized. Its most ancient shape is an
equilateral triangle, the sides being all of the same thickness (A).
Cod. Claromontanus, though of the sixth century, is in this instance
as simple as any: the Herculanean rolls, Codd. Frid-August., Vati-
can., and the very old copy of the Pentateuch at Paris (Colbert) and
Leyden, much resemble it, only that sometimes the Herculanean sides
are slightly curved, and the right descending stroke of Cod. Vatican.
is thickened. In Cod. A a tendency begins to appear to prolong the
base on one or both sides, and to strengthen the ends by points ; we
see a little more of this in the palimpsest Homer of the fifth century,
published by Cureton. The habit increases and becomes confirmed
in Codd. Ephraem, the Vatican Dio Cassius of the 5th or 6th century,
in Cod. R, and particularly in N and E of the Acts (Nos. 4, 14, 25).
In the oblong later uncials it becomes quite elaborate, e. g. Cod. B of
the Apocalypse, or Nos. 7, 21, 32. On the Rosetta stone and in
the Cod. Bezae the right side is produced beyond the triangle, and
is produced and slightly curved in Hyperides ; curved and strongly
pointed in Cod. Z.

Epsilon has its ordinary angular form on the Rosetta marble and
other inscriptions; in the oldest manuscripts it consists of a semi-
circle, from whose centre to the right of it a horizontal radius is
drawn to the concave circumference. ‘Thus it appears in the Hercu-
laneum rolls (only that here the radius is usually broken off before it
meets the circle), in Codd. Frid-August., Vatican., the two Paris Pen-

32 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

tateuchs (Colbert-Leyden 4th cent., Coislin. 6th) and the Cotton
Genesis. In Cod. Alex. a slight trace is found of the more recent
practice of strengthening each of the three extremities with knobs;
the custom increases in Codd. Ephraemi, Bezae and still more in Codd.
NRZ, wherein the curve becomes greater than a semicircle. In
Hyperides (and in a slighter degree in Cod. Claromon. No. 19) the
shape almost resembles the Latin e. The form of this and the other
round letters was afterwards much affected in the narrow oblong
uncials : see Nos.°7, 16, 32.

Zeta on the Rosetta stone maintains its old form (X), which is
indeed but the next letter reversed. In manuscripts it receives its
usual modern shape (Z), the ends being pointed decidedly, slightly, or
not at all, much after the manner described for epsilon. In old
copies the lower horizontal line is a trifle curved (Cod. R. No. 5), or
even both the extreme lines (Cod. Z, No. 6), and Cod. Augiensis of
St Paul. In such late books as Parham 18 (a.pv. 980, facsim. No. 32)
Zeta is so large as to run far below the line, ending in a kind of tail.

Eta does not depart from its normal shape (H) except that in
Cod. Ephraemi and some narrow and late uncials (e.g. Nos. 7, 32)
the cross line is often more than half way up the letter. In a few
later uncials the cross line passes owtside the two perpendiculars, as
in the Cod. Augiensis, 26 times on the photographed page of Seri-
vener’s edition.

Theta deserves close attention. In some early inscriptions it is
found as a square, bisected horizontally (Q). On the Rosetta stone
and most others (but only in such monuments) it is a circle, with a
strong central point. On the Herculanean rolls the central point is
spread into a short horizontal line, yet not reaching the circum-
ference (No. 10, 1. 8). Then in our uncials from the fourth to the
sixth century the line becomes a horizontal diameter to a true circle
(Codd. Frid-August. Vatican. Codd. ANRZ, Ephraemi, Claromont.
and Cureton’s Homer). In the 7th century the diameter began to
pass out of the circle on both sides: thence the circle came to be
compressed into an ellipse (sometimes very narrow) and the ends of
the minor axes to be ornamented with knobs, as in Cod. B of the
Apocalypse (8th cent.), Cod. Augiensis (9th cent.), LX of the Gospels,
after the manner of the 10th century (Nos. 7, 16, 21, 32, 33).

Jota would need no remark but for the custom of placing over it
and upsilon, when they commence a syllable, either a very short
straight line, or one or two dots. After the papyrus rolls, no copy is
quite without them, from the Codex Alexandrinus, the Cotton
Genesis and Paris-Leyden Pentateuch, to the more recent cursives ;
although in some manuscripts they are much rarer than in others.
By far the most usual practice is to put two points, but Cod. Eph-
raemi, in its Vew Testament portion, stands alone in exhibiting the
straight line; Codd. Borgianus (T) and Claromont. have but one
point ; Cod. N has two for iota, one for wpsilon.

Kappa deserves notice chiefly because the vertex of the angle
formed by the two inclined lines very frequently does not meet the
perpendicular line, but falls short of it a little to the right: we observe

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 33

this in Codd. ANR, Ephraemi, and later books. The copies that have
strong points at the end of epsilon &e., (e.g. Codd. NR and AZ partly)
have the same at the extremity of the thin, or upper limb of
Kappa.

Lambda much resembles alpha, but is less complicated. All our
models (except Harl. 5598, No.7) from the Rosetta stone downwards,
have the right limb longer than the left, which thus leans against its
side, but the length of the projection varies even in the same passage
(e.g. No. 10). In most copies later than the Herculanean rolls and
Cod. Frid-August. the shorter line is much the thinner, and the
longer slightly curved. In Cod. Z (Nos. 6, 18) the projection is
curved elegantly at the end, as we saw in delta,

Mu variesas much as most letters. Its normal shape, resembling
the English M, is retained in the Rosetta stone and most inscriptions,
but at an early period there was a tendency to make the letter
broader and not to bring the re-entering or middle angle so low as
in English (e.g. Codd. Frid-August. Vatican.). In Cod. Ephraemi this
central angle is sometimes a little rounded: in Codd. Alex. and Par-
ham 18 the lines forming the angles do not always spring from the top of
the vertical lines: in Arund. 547 (No. 16) they spring almost from
their foot, forming a thick inelegant loop below the line, the letter
being rather narrow: Harl. 5598 (No. 7) somewhat resembles this last,
only that the loop is higher up. In the Herculanean rolls (and to a
less extent in the Cotton Genesis) the two outer lines cease to be
perpendicular, and lean outwards until the letter looks much like an
inverted W (No. 10). In the papyrus Hyperides (No. 9) these outer
lines are low curves, and the central lines rise in a kind of flourish
above them. ‘This form is so much exaggerated in some examples,
that by discarding the outer curves, we obtain the shape seen in
Cod. Z (Nos. 6, 18), and one or two others (e.g. Paul M. in Harl.
5613), almost exactly resembling an inverted pi.

Nu is easier, the only change (besides the universal transition
from the square to the oblong in the later uncials) being that in a
few cases the thin cross line does not pass from the top of the left to
the bottom of the right vertical line as in English (N), but only half-
way or two-thirds down in the Cotton Genesis, Cod. A, Harl. 5598,
and others; in Codd. NNR Parham 18 it often neither springs from
the top of one, nor reaches the foot of the other (Nos. 4, 5, 11b, 12,
32); while in Cod. Claromont. (No, 19) it is here and there not far
from horizontal. In a few cwrsives (e.g. 440 Evan. at Cambridge, and
Tischendorf’s lo“ of the Acts), H and N almost interchange their shapes.

Xi in the Rosetta stone and Herculanean rolls consists of three
parallel straight lines, the middle one being the shortest, as in
modern printed Greek : but all our Biblical manuscripts exhibit modi-
fications of the small printed € which must be closely inspected, but
cannot easily be described. In the Cotton Genesis this 17 is narrow
and smaller than its fellows, much like an old English Z resting on a
horizontal base which curves downwards: while in late uncials, as B |
of the Apocalypse, Cod. Augiensis (1. 13 of photographed page), and
especially in Parham 18 (No. 32) the letter and its flourished finial

84 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

are continued far below the line. For the rest we must refer to our
facsimile alphabets, &c. The figures in Cod. Frid-August. (Nos. 3,
11, ll. 3, 8) look particularly awkward.

Omicron is unchanged, excepting that in the latest uncials (No.
16, 32) the circle is mostly compressed, like theta, into a very
eccentric ellipse.

Pi requires attention. Its original shape was doubtless two ver-
tical straight lines joined at top by another horizontal, thinner
perhaps but not much shorter than they. Thus we meet with it on
the Rosetta stone, Codd. R Frid-August., Vatican., Ephraem., Claro-
montanus, Laud. of the Acts, the two Pentateuchs, Cureton’s Homer,
and sometimes Cod. Alexand. (No. 12). The fine vertical line is,
however, slightly produced on both sides in such early documents as
the papyri of Hyperides and Herculaneum, and the Cotton Genesis,
as well as in Cod. Alexand. occasionally. Both extremities of this
line are fortified by strong points in Cod. N and mostly in Cod. A,
but the left side only in Cod. Z, which in Ood. Bezae becomes a sort
of hooked curve. The later oblong pi was usually very plain, with
thick vertical lines and a very fine horizontal, in Arund. 547 (No. 16)
not at all produced ; in Harl. 5598 (No. 7) slightly produced on both
sides; in Parham 18 (No. 32) only on the left.

tho is otherwise simple, but in all our authorities except inserip-
tions is produced below the line of writing, least perhaps in the
papyri and Cod. Claromont., considerably in Cod. AX (Nos. 12, 33),
most in Parham 18 (No. 32): Cod. N and many later copies have
the lower extremity boldly bevelled.

Sigma retains its angular shape (C or Σ) only on inscriptions, as
at Rosetta, and that long after the square shapes of omicron and theta
were discarded. The semicircular form, however, arose early, and to
this letter must be applied all that was said of epsilon as regards
terminal points, and its cramped shape in later ages.

Taw in its oldest form consists of two straight lines of like thick-
ness, the horizontal being bisected by the lower and vertical one. As
early as in Cod. Frid-August. the horizontal line is made thin, and
strengthened on the left side on/y by a point or small knob (Nos. 3,
11): thus we find it in Cod. Laudian. of the Acts sometimes. In
Cod. Alex. both ends are slightly pointed, in Cod. Ephraem. and
others much more. In Cod. Bezae the horizontal is curved and flou-
rished ; in the late uncials the vertical is very thick, the horizontal
fine, and the ends formed into heavy triangles (e.g. No. 16).

Upsilon on the Rosetta stone and Herculanean rolls is like our Y,
all the strokes being of equal thickness and not running below the
line: nor do they in Codd. XZ Augiensis or Hyperides, which have
the upper lines neatly curved (Nos. 6, 9, 18, 33). The right limb of
many of the rest is sometimes, but not always curved; the vertical
line in Codd. Frid-August. and Vatie. drops slightly below the line ;
in Codd. Alexand., Ephraem., Cotton Genesis, Cureton’s Homer and
Laud, of the Acts somewhat more ; in others (as Codd. Bezae RN) con-
siderably. In later uncials (Nos. 7, 32) it becomes a long or awk-
ward Y, or even degenerates into a long V (No. 16); or, in copies

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 35

written by Latin scribes, into Y reversed. We have described under
iota the custom of placing dots &c. over upsilon.

Phi is a remarkable letter. In most copies it is the largest in the
alphabet, quite disproportionately large in Codd. ZL (Paris 62) and
others, and to some extent in Codd. AR Eph. Clar. The circle (which
in the Cotton Genesis is sometimes still a lozenge, see above, p. 28
note), though large and in some copies even too broad (e.g. No. 18),
is usually in the line of the other letters, the vertical line being pro-
duced far upwards (Cod. Augiens. and Nos. 16, 19), or downwards
(No. 10), or both (No. 32). On the Rosetta stone the circle is very
small and the straight line short.

Chi is a simple transverse cross (X) and never goes above or below
the line. The limb that inclines from left to right is for the most
part thick, the other thin (with final points according to the practice
stated for epsi/on), and this limb or both a little curved.

Psi is a rare but trying letter. Its oldest form resembled an
English V with a straight line running up bisecting its interior angle.
On the Rosetta stone it had already changed into its present form (W),
the curve being a small semicircle, the vertical rising and falling a
little below the line. In the Cotton Genesis ps? is a little taller than
the rest, but the vertical line does not rise above the level of the
circle. In Codd. ANR the under line is prolonged: in R the two
limbs are straight lines making an angle of about 45° with the vertical,
while oftentimes in Hyperides and Cod. Augiensis. (photogr. ll. 18, 23)
they curve downwards, the limbs both in N and R being strongly
pointed at the ends, and the bottom of the vertical bevelled as usual.
In Cod. B of the Apocalypse the limbs (strongly pointed) fall into a
straight line and the figure becomes a large cross (No. 7).

Omega took the form Q, even when omicron and theta were
square; thus it appears on the Rosetta stone, but in the Hyperides
and Herculanean rolls is a single curve, much like the w of English
writing, only that the central part is sometimes only a low double
curve (No. 10, 1. 6). In the Cotton Genesis, Codd. Frid-August.,
Vatican., Alex., Ephraem., Bezae, Claromont., Nitriens. there is little
difference in shape, though sometimes Cod. Vatic. comes near the
Herculanean rolls, and Cod. A. next to it: elsewhere their strokes
(especially those in the centre) are fuller and more laboured. Yet in
Cod. N it often is but a plain semicircle, bisected by a perpendicular
radius, with the ends of the curve bent inwards (No. 14, 1.2). In the
late uncials (Nos. 7, 16) it almost degenerates into an ungraceful W,
while in Cod. Augiensis (photogr. 1. 18) the first limb is occasionally
a complete circle.

These details might be indefinitely added to by references to
other codices and monuments of antiquity, but we have employed
most of the principal copies of the Greek Testament, and have
indicated to the student the chief points to which his attention
should be drawn. ‘Two leading principles have perhaps been

sufficiently established by the foregoing examples :
3—2

35 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

First, that the upright square uncials are more ancient than
those which are narrow, oblong, or leaning’.

Secondly, that the simpler and less elaborate the style of
writing, the more remote is its probable date.

Copies of a later age occasionally aim at imitating the fashion
of an earlier period, or possibly the style of the older book from
which their text is drawn. But this anachronism of fashion
may be detected, as well by other circumstances we are soon to
mention, as from the air of constraint which pervades the whole
manuscript: the rather as the scribe will now and then fall into
the more familiar manner of his contemporaries ; especially when
writing those small letters which our Biblical manuscripts of all
dates (even the most venerable) perpetually crowd into the ends
of lines, in order to save space.

11. We do not intend to dwell much on the cursive hand-
writing. No books of the Greek Scriptures earlier than the
tenth century in that style are now extant*?, though it was pre-
valent long before in the intercourse of business or common life.
The papyri of Hyperides (e.g. No. 9) and the Herculanean rolls,
in a few places, shew that the process had even then commenced,
for the letters of each word are often joined, and their shapes
prove that swiftness of execution was more aimed at than
distinctness. This is seen even more clearly in a petition to
Ptolemy Philometor (B.c. 164) represented in the Paléographie
Universelle (No. 56); the same great work contains (No. 66)
two really cursive charters of the Emperors Maurice (A.D. 600)
and Heraclius (A.D. 616); yet the earliest books known to be
written in cursive letters are the Bodleian Euclid (dated A.p.
888) and the twenty-four dialogues of Plato in the same Library
(dated Α. Ὁ. 895). There is reason to believe, from the compa-

1 Codd. B of Apocalypse, Θ A (No. 8b) of the Gospels, and Silvestre’s No. 68,
all of about the 8th century, slope more or less to the right: Cod. I’ (No. 8a) of
the 9th century, a very little to the left.

3 The earliest cursive Biblical manuscript we can mention is Sylvestre, No. 78,
Paris 70, Wetstein’s 14 of the Gospels, subscribed ἐγράφη νικηφόρου βασιλεύοντος
wd. ζ΄, which can only be A.D. 964, and the sovereign Nicephorus II: the years
neither of the first emperor of that name (802—8r1), nor of the third (r078—81)
will suit the indiction. Cod. 429 of the Gospels is dated 978, Cod. 148 of the
Acts 984, Cod. 5Ρὲ 994. The date (835) assigned to Cod. 461 by Scholz seems
quite improbable, though the Indiction (13) is correct.

3 At the end of the Euclid we read eypadn χειρὶ στεῴφανου κληρικου μηνί σεπτεμ-
βριωι ινδιζ ετει κοσμου στ SS εκτησαμὴν apeOas πατρεὺς τὴν παρουσαν βιβλιον: Of

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 37

ratively unformed character of the writing in them all, that
Burney 19 in the British Museum (from which we have extracted
the alphabet No. 8c, Plate I.), and the minute, beautiful and im-
portant Codex 1 of the Gospels at Basle (of which see a facsimile
No. 23)! are but little later than the Oxford books, and may be
referred to the tenth century. Books copied after the cursive
hand had become regularly formed, in the eleventh, twelfth and
thirteenth centuries, are hard to be distinguished by the mere
handwriting, though they are often dated, or their age fixed by
the material (see p. 21), or the style of their illuminations. Col-
bert. 2844, or 33 of the Gospels, “the Queen of the cursives”’ as
it has been called, from its critical value (facsim. No. 34), 15
attributed to the eleventh century. Our next specimen, Burney
21 (facsimile No: 15) is dated A.p. 1292, and affords a good
example of the style usual with the religious persons who were
the official scribes (καλλίγραφοι)3 of their respective convents,
and copied the Holy Scriptures for sale. Beta (1. 1 letter 4)
when joined to other letters, is barely distinguishable from
upsilon?; nu is even nearer to mu; the tall forms of eta and

the Plato, εγραφη χειρι τω καλλιγραφου * ευτυχως ἀρεθη διακονωι πατρει" νομισματων
βυζαντίεων δεκα καὶ τριων “ μηνι νοεμβριωι ινδικτιωνος ιδ΄ ετει κοσμου ςυδ βασιλειας
Aeovros Tou φιλοχυ υἱου βασιλειου του αειμνιστου. It should be stated that these
very curious books, both written by monks, and all the dated manuscripts of the
Greek Testament we have seen except Canonici 34 in the Bodleian (which reckons
from the Christian wera, A.D. 1515—6), calculate from the Greek era of the
Creation, September 1, B.C. 5508. To obtain the year A.D., therefore, from
January 1 to August 31 in any year, subtract 5508 from the given year; from
September 1 to December 31 subtract 5509. The indiction which usually accom-
panies this date is a useful check in case of any corruption or want of legibility in
the letters employed as numerals.

1 For the facsimiles of Codd. EFGHKLMUX I. 33, we are indebted to the
liberality and kindness of Dr Tregelles, who permitted an artist to copy them
from tracings of one whole page of every manuscript he has collated which
he took with his own hand, and will, it may be hoped, at some time make
public.

2 The writer of Burney 21 (r*™), ὁ ramewos Oeodwpos ἁγιωπετριτης Taxa Kat
καλλίγραφος as he calls himself (that is, I suppose, monk of the Convent of Sancta
Petra at Constantinople, short-hand and fair writer), was the scribe of at least jive
more copies of Scripture now extant: Birch’s Havyn. 1, A.p. 1278 [Scholz Evan.
234]; Wetstein’s Evan. 90, A.D. 1293; q®* A.D. 1295; Scholz’s Evan. 412, Δ. Ὁ.
1301; Wetstein’s Evan. 74, undated.

3 Hence in the later uncials, some of which must therefore have been copied
from earlier cursives, B and YT (which might seem to have no resemblance) are
confounded: e.g. in Parham 18 (A.D, 980), v for 8, Luke vi. 34; β for v, John
x...

88 - ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

epsilon are very graceful, and the whole style elegant and, after
a little practice, easily read. Burney 22 (facsimile No. 36) is
dated about the same time, A.D. 1319, and the four Biblical
lines much resemble Burney 21, but the lines below, containing
the date (which yet on the whole seem to be primdé manu) are so
full of flourishes and contractions, that they cannot easily be
deciphered at a first glance’. In the fourteenth century a care-
less style came into fashion, of which Cod. Leicestr. (No. 35) is
an exaggerated instance, and during this century and the next
our manuscripts, though not devoid of a certain beauty of appear-
ance, are too full of arbitrary and elaborate contractions to be
conveniently read. The formidable lists of abbreviations and
ligatures represented in Donaldson’s Greek Grammar (p. 20,
2nd ed.) originated at this period in the perverse ingenuity of
the Greek emigrants in the West of Europe, who subsisted by
their skill as copyists; and these pretty puzzles (for such they
now are to many a fair classical scholar), by being introduced
into early printed books?, have largely helped to withdraw them
from use in modern times.

12. We have now to describe the practice of Biblical manu-
scripts as regards the insertion of « forming a diphthong with
the long vowels eta and omega, whether by being aseript,
i.e. written by their side, or subscript, i.e. written under them.
In the earliest inscriptions and in the papyri of Thebes ὁ
ascript (the dota not smaller than the other letters) is inva-
riably found. In the petition to Ptolemy Philometor (above,
p- 36) it occurs four times in the first line, three times in the
third: in the fragments of Hyperides it is perpetually though
not always read, even where (especially with verbs) it has no
rightful place, e.g. erwi καὶ αντιβολωι (facsim. No. 9, ll. 3, 4)
for αἰτῶ καὶ ἀντιβοχῶ. A little before the Christian era it began
to grow obsolete, probably from its being lost in pronunciation.
In the Herculaneum Philodemus (the possible limits of whose

+ The full signature is ἐτελειώθη τὸ παρὸν ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Thy Ke τοῦ
ἱαννουαρίου μηνὸς τῆς ὡκ éyxpovlas, Presuming that > is suppressed before ors
this is 6827 of the Greeks, A.D. 1319.

? Thus the type cast for the Royal Printing Office at Paris, and used by
Robert Stephens, is said to have been modelled on the style of the calligrapher
Angelus Vergecius, from whose skill arose the expression ‘he writes like an
angel.” Codd, 296 of the Gospels, 124 of the Acts, 151 of St Paul are in his hand.

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 39

date is from B.C. 50 to A.D. 79) it is often dropped, though more
usually written. In Cod. Frid-August. it is very rare, and from
this period it almost disappears from Biblical uncials!; in
Cureton’s Homer of the fifth or perhaps of the sixth century ὁ
ascript is sometimes neglected, but usually inserted; sometimes
also ὁ is placed above H or ©, an arrangement neither neat nor
convenient. With the cursive character ¢ ascr¢épt came in again,
as may be seen from the subscriptions in the Bodleian Euclid
and Plato (page 36, note 3). The semi-cursive fragment of
St Paul’s Epistles in red letters, used for the binding of
Harleian 5613, contains ὁ ascript twice, but I have tried in
vain to verify Griesbach’s statement (Symbol. Crit. 11. p. 166)
that it has ὁ subscript “ bis tantum aut ter.” I can find no such
instance in these leaves. The cursive manuscripts, speaking
generally, either entirely omit both forms, or, if they give either,
far more often neglect than insert them. Cod. 1 of the Gospels
( facsim. No. 23, 1. 1) exhibits the ascript 1. Of 48 codices now
in England which have been examined with a view to this
matter, twelve have no vestige of either fashion, fifteen represent
the ascript use, nine the subscript exclusively, while the few that
remain have both indifferently. The earliest cursive copy ascer-
tained to exhibit ¢ subscript (and that but a few times) is the
Cod. Ephesius or Wetstein’s 71, dated A.p. 1160. The sub-
script « came much in vogue during the 15th century, and thus
was adopted in printed books.

13. Breathings and accents present more difficulty, by
reason of a practice that prevailed about the 7th or 8th centuries
of inserting them in older manuscripts, where they were absent
primé manu. That such was done in many instances (e.g. in
Codd. Vatican. and Coislin. 202 or H of St Paul) appears clearly
from the fact that the passages which the scribe who retouched
the old letters (p. 23) for any cause left unaltered, are destitute
of these marks, though they appear in all other places. The
case of Cod. Alexandrinus is less easy. Though the rest of the
book has neither spirits (except a few here and there) nor accents,
the first four lines of each column of the book of Genesis (see
facsimile No. 12), which are written in red, are fully furnished

1 Yet Tischendorf (N. T. 1859, Proleg. p. exxxiii) cites ηιδισαν from Cod. Bezae

(Mark i. 34), ἕυλωι (Luke xxiii, 31) from Cod. Cyprius, w from Cod, U (Matth.
xxv. 15), Cod. A (Luke vii. 4).

40 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

with them. These marks Baber, who edited the Old Testa-
ment portion of Cod. A, pronounced to be by a second hand
(Notae, p. 1); Sir Frederick Madden, a more competent judge,
declares them the work of the original scribe (Madden’s Syl-
vestre, Vol. 1. p. 194 note), and after repeated examination we
know not how to dissent from his view. The Cureton palimpsest
of Homer also has them, though they are occasionally obli-
terated, and some few are evidently inserted by a corrector; the
case is nearly so with the Milan Homer edited by Mai; and the
same must be stated of the Vienna Dioscorides (Sylvestre No. 62),
whose date is fixed by internal evidence to about A.p. 500.
These facts, and others like these, may make us hesitate to
adopt the notion generally received among scholars on the autho-
rity of Montfaucon (Palaeogr. Grraec. p. 33), that breathings and
accents were not introduced primé manu before the 7th or 8th
century ; though even at that period, no doubt, they were placed
very incorrectly, and often omitted altogether. The breathings
are much the more ancient and important of the two. The
spiritus lenis indeed may be a mere invention of the Alexandrian
grammarians of the second or third century before Christ, but
the spiritus asper is in fact the substitute for a real letter (H )
which appears on the oldest inscriptions; its original shape
being the first half of the H (|—), of which the second half was
subsequently adopted for the denis (-|). This form is some-
times found in manuscripts of about the eleventh century (e.g.
Lebanon, B.M. Addit. 11300 or k**, and usually in Lambeth
1178 or 457), but even in the Cod. Alexandrinus the comma and
inverted comma are several times substituted to represent the
lenis and asper respectively (facsim. No. 12): and at a later
period this last was the ordinary, though not quite the invariable
mode of expressing the breathings. Aristophanes of Byzantium
(keeper of the famous Library at Alexandria under Ptolemy
Euergetes, about B.c. 240) though probably not the inventor of
the Greek accents, was the first to arrange them into a system.
Accentuation must have been a welcome aid to those who
employed Greek as a learned, though not as their vernacular
tongue, and is so convenient and suggestive that no modern
scholar can afford to dispense with its familiar use: yet not
being, like the rough breathing, an essential portion of the lan-
guage, it was but slowly brought into general vogue. It would

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 41

seem that in Augustine’s age [354—430], the distinction be-
tween the smooth and rough breathing in manuscripts was just
such a point as a careful reader would mark, a hasty one over-
look’. Hence it is not surprising that though these marks are
entirely absent both from the Theban and Herculaneum papyri,
a few breathings appear by the first hand in Cod. Borgianus or
T (Tischendorf, N. T. 1859, Proleg. p. cxxxi). Such as appear,
together with some accents in the Coislin Octateuch of the 6th
or 7th century, may not the less be primd manu because many
pages are destitute of them; those of Cod. Claromontanus,
which were once deemed original, are now pronounced by its
editor Tischendorf to be a later addition. Cod. N, the purple
fragment so often spoken of already, exhibits primé manu over
some vowels a kind of smooth breathing or slight acute accent,
sometimes little larger than a point, but on no intelligible prin-
ciple, so far as we can see, and far oftener omits them entirely :
all copies of Scripture which have not been specified, down to
the end of the 7th century, are quite destitute of them. The
chief manuscript of the 8th century, Cod. L or Paris 62 of the
Gospels, has them for the most part, but not always; though
often in the wrong place, and at times in utter defiance of all
grammatical rules. Cod. B of the Apocalypse, however, though
of the same age, has breathings and accents as constantly and
correctly as most. Codices of the ninth century, with the ex-
ception of three written in the West of Europe (Codd. Augiensis
or Paul F, Sangallensis or A of the Gospels and Boernerianus
or Paul G, which will be particularly described in the next
section), are all accompanied with these marks in full, though set
often down without any precise rule, so far as our experience has
enabled us to observe. The uncial Evangelistaria (e.g. Arundel
547; Parham 18; Harleian. 5598), especially, are much ad-
dicted to prefixing the spiritus asper improperly; chiefly, per-
haps, to words beginning with H, so that documents of that age
are but poor authorities on such points. Of the cursives the

1 He is speaking (Question. super Genes, clxii.) of the difference between
ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ and ῥάβδου αὑτοῦ, Gen. xlvii. 31. “ Fallit enim eos verbum Grecum,
quod eisdem literis scribitur, sive ejus, sive sue: sed accentus [he must mean the
breathings] dispares sunt, et ab eis, qui ista noverunt, in codicibus non contem-
nuntur.” (Opera, Tom. IV. p. 53, ed. 1586, Lugdun.) adding that “‘sue” might be
expressed by ἑαυτοῦ.

42 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

general tendency is to be more and more accurate as regards the
accentuation, the later the date: but this is only a general rule,
as some that are early are as careful, and certain of the latest as
negligent as can well be imagined. All of them are partial to
placing accents or breathings over both parts of a word com-
pounded with a preposition (e.g. ἐπὶσυνάξαι), and on the other
hand often drop them between a preposition and its case (6. g.
ἐπάροτρον).

14. The punctuation in early times was very simple. In
the papyri of Hyperides there are no stops at all; in the
Herculanean rolls exceeding few: Codd. Frid-August. and
Vaticanus (the latter very rarely by the first hand) have a
single point here and there on a level with the top of the
letters, and occasionally a very small break in the continuous
uncials, with or without the point, to denote a pause in the
sense. Codd. A N have the same point a little oftener; in
Codd. C, W* (Paris 314) Z the single point stands indiscrimi-
nately at the head, middle or foot of the letters, while in Εἰ
(Basil. K. 1v. 35) of the Gospels and B of the Apocalypse
this change in the position of the point indicates a full-stop,
half-stop, or comma respectively. In Cod. L of the same
date as these two, besides the full point we have the comma
(::.) and semicolon (::), with a cross also for a stop. In Codd.
Y © (of about the eighth century) the single point has its
various powers as in Cod. E, &c., but besides this are double,
treble, and in Cod. Y quadruple, points with different powers.
In late uncials, especially Evangelistaria, the chief stop is a cross,
often in red (e.g. Arund. 547); while in Harleian. 5598 3
seems to be the note of interrogation. When the continuous
writing came to be broken up into separate words (of which
Cod. Augiensis in the ninth century affords the earliest ex-
ample) the single point was intended to be placed after the
last letter of each word, on a level with the middle of the
letters. But even in this copy they are often omitted in parts,
and in Codd. AG, written on the same plan, more frequently
still. Our statements refer only to the Greek portions of these
copies; the Latin semicolon (;) and note of interrogation (?)
occur in the Latin versions. The Greek interrogation (;) first
occurs about the ninth century, and (,) used as a stop a little

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 43

later. In the earliest cursive the system of punctuation is much
the same as that of printed books: the English colon (:) not
being used, but the upper single point in its stead. Ina few
cursives (e.g. Gonville or 59 of the Gospels), this upper point,
set in a larger space, stands also for a full stop: indeed (")
is the only stop found in Tischendorf’s lo" of the Acts (Brit.
Mus. Add. 20,003): while (;) and (*) are often confused in
440 of the Gospels (Cantab. Mm. 6.9). The English comma,
placed above a letter, is used for the apostrophus, which occurs
in the very oldest uncials, especially at the end of proper
names, or to separate compounds (6. g. am’ ορφανίσθεντες in
Cod. Clarom.), or when the word ends in p (e.g. @uyarnp’
in Codd. Sinait. and A, χειρ᾽ in Cod. A, ὥσπερ᾽ Dioscorides,
A.D. 500), or even to divide syllables (e.g. συρυγίγας in Cod.
Frid-August., woN Xa, κατεστραμμενη, ἀναγ γέλε in Cod. Sinai-
ticus). This mark is more rare in Cod. Ephraemi than in
some others, but is used more or less by all, and is found
after εξ, or οὐχ, and a few like words, even in the most recent
cursives.

15. Abbreviated words are stated to be least met with in
Cod. Vatican., though we scarcely know that copy intimately
enough to speak on such a minute point: but even it has Oc,
Ko, ισ, yo for θεός, κύριος, &e. and their cases. Besides these
Codd. Frid-August., Alex., Ephraem. and the rest supply avoc,
ουνοσ, mva (πνε" Cod. L), rnp, ump, Ane Or τηλμ οἵ τὴμ, τὴν
or wor or iA, dad, and some of them onp for σώτηρ, vo for

vids, παρνοσ for παρθενος. Cod. Bezae abridges the sacred names
into ype, mo' &e. and their cases, as very frequently, but by
no means invariably, do the kindred Codd. Augiens., Sangall.,
and Boerner. A few dots sometimes supply the place of the line
denoting abbreviation (e. g. 6c Cotton Genesis, avoe Colbert.
Pentateuch}. A straight line over the last letter of a line indi-
cates N (or also M in the Latin of Codd. Bezae and Claromont.)
in all the Biblical uncials, but is simply placed over numerals in
the Herculanean rolls: Ks Ts and less often &, for καί, -ται,
-θαι are met with in Cod, Frid-August. and all later: 8 for ov

1 Even Codex Sinaiticus has iu and τῦ in consecutive lines (Apoe. xxii. 20, 21).

44 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

chiefly in Codd. L, Augiensis and the more recent uncials. Such
compendia scribendi as FF in the Herculanean rolls (above p. 29)
occur mostly at the end of lines: that form, M°T (No. 11a, 1. 4),
and a few more even in the Cod. Frid-August.; in Cureton’s
Homer we have II* for πους, Cs for -cas and such like. In
later books they are more numerous and complicated, particularly
in cursive writing: the terminations ° for os,” for v, ‘ for ον,
~ for ws, 5 for ns, ¥ for ov are familiar; besides others, peculiar
to one or a few copies; e.g. h for av, b for ep, ~ for a,
= for ap in the Emmanuel College copy of the Epistles (Paul
30), and : for a, © for av, ¥ for as in Parham 17 of the Apoca-
lypse. The mark > is not only met with in the Herculanean
rolls, but in the Hyperides (facsim. 9, 1. 6) in Codd. Frid-
August., the two Pentateuchs, Codd. Augiensis, Sangall. and
Boernerianus, and seems merely designed to fill up vacant
space, like the flourishes in a legal instrument. Capital let-
ters at the beginning of clauses, &c. are freely met with in
all documents excepting in the oldest papyri, the Hercula-
nean rolls, Codd. Frid-August., Vatican., the Colbert Penta-
teuch and one or two fragments besides. Their absence is
a proof of high antiquity. All however are apt to crowd
small letters into the end of a line to save room, and if
these small letters preserve the form of the larger, it is natu-
ral to conclude that the scribe is writing in a natural hand,
not an assumed one, and the argument for the antiquity of such
a document, derived from the shape of its letters, thus becomes
all the stronger. - The continuous form of writing separate
words must have prevailed in manuscripts long after it was
obsolete in common life: Cod. Claromont., which is continuous
even in its Latin version, divides the words in the inscriptions
and subscriptions to the several books.

16. The stichometry of the sacred books has next to be
considered. The term στέχοι, like the Latin versus, originally
referring whether to rows of trees, or of the oars in a trireme
(Virg. “775. v. 119), would naturally come to be applied to lines
of poetry, and in this sense it is used by Pindar (ἐπέων στίχες
Pyth. τν. 100) and also by Theocritus (γράψον καὶ τόδε γράμμα,
τό σοι στίχοισι χαράξω Idyl. xx111. 46), if the common reading be
correct. Both Epiphanius [d. 403] and Chrysostom (vid. Suicer.

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 45

Thesaur, Eccles. 'Tom. 11. p. 1033) inform us that the book of
Psalms was in their time divided into στέχοι, as in fact we may
see for ourselves in Codd. Sinaiticus and Vatican. (facsimile No.
20), wherein, according to the true principles of Hebrew poetry,
the verses do not correspond in metre or quantity of syllables, but
in the parallelism or relationship subsisting between the several
members of the same sentence or stanza’. It seems to have oc-
curred to Euthalius, a deacon of Alexandria, as it did long after-
wards to Bishop Jebb when he wrote his “ Sacred Literature,”
that a large portion of the New Testament might be divided
into στίχοι on the same principles: and that even where that
distribution should prove but artificial, it would guide the public
reader in the management of his voice, and remove the necessity
for an elaborate system of punctuation. Such, therefore, we
conceive to be the use and design of stichometry, as applied
to the Greek Testament by Euthalius, whose edition of St
Paul’s Epistles thus divided was published a.p. 458, that of
the Acts and Epistles a.p. 490. Who arranged the στέχοι
of the Gospels (which are in truth better suited for such a
process than the Epistles) has not appeared. Although but few
manuscripts now exist that are written orovyndoy (a plan that
consumed too much vellum to become general), we read in many
copies at the end of each of the books of the New Testament, a
calculation of the number of στίχοι it contained, sufticiently
unlike to shew that the arrangement was not the same in all
codices, yet near enough to prove that they were divided on the
same principle (for these numbers see below, p.57)*. In the few
documents that remain written στυχηρῶς, the length of the
clauses is very unequal; some (e.g. Cod. Bezae, see sect. 11.
of this chapter and the specimen pages) containing as much in
a line as might be conveniently read aloud in a breath, others
(e.g. Cod. Laud. of the Acts) having only one or two words

1 That we have rightly understood Epiphanius’ notion of the στίχοι is evident
from his own language respecting Psalm exli. 1, wherein he prefers the addition
made by the Septuagint to the second clause, because by so doing its authors
ἀχώλωτον ἐποίησαν τὸν στίχον: so that the passage should run “Ὁ Lord, I ery
unto Thee, make haste unto me || Give hear to the voice of my request,” τῆς
δεησεώς μου to complete the rhythm.

? At the end of 2 Thess., in a hand which Tischendorf states to be very ancient,
but not that of the original scribe, the Codex Sinaiticus has στίχων pr [180; the
usual number is 106]: at the end of a Cor, there is no such note,

40 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

in a line. The Cod. Claromontanus ( facsim. No. 19) in this
respect lies between those extremes, and the fourth great exam-
ple of this class (Cod. Coislin. 202, H of St Paul) of the sixth
century, has one of its few surviving pages (of 16 lines each)
arranged Uiteratim as follows (1 Cor. x. 22, &c.): ἐσμεν | παντὰ
μοι εἕεστιν | αλλ ov παντα συμφερει | παντα μοι εξεστιν | αλλ
ov παντα οἰκοδομει | μηδεισ To εαὐτου ζητείτω (οὗ necessitatem
spatit) | ἀλλα To Tov ετερου | παν To εν μακέλλω πω | λουμενον
(ob necessttatem) | ἐσθίετε μηδενα ava | κρινωντεσ δια πὴν | cvvet-
Snow | Tov yap Kv ἢ γη καμοπλη | opwpa autno (ob necessit.) |
ιδετιοααλθιυμαοιτο. | Other manuscripts written στυχηρῶς are
Matthaei’s V of the 8th century, Bengel’s Uffenbach 3 of St
John (Wetstein’s 101), Alter’s Forlos. 29 (26 of the Apocalypse),
and, as it would seem, the Cod. Sangallensis A. In Cod. Claro-
mont. there are scarcely any stops (the middle point being
chiefly reserved to follow abridgements or numerals), the sticho-
metry being of itself an elaborate scheme of punctuation, but the
longer στίχοι of Cod. Bezae are often divided by a single point.

17. In using manuscripts of the Greek Testament, we must
carefully note whether a reading is prim@ manu or by some sub-
sequent corrector. It will often happen that these last are utterly
valueless, having been inserted even from printed copies by a
modern owner (like some marginal variations of the Cod. Leices-
trensis), and such as these really ought not to have been extracted
by collators at all; while others by the second hand are almost
as weighty, for age and goodness, as the text itself. All these
points are explained by critical editors for each document
separately; in fact to discriminate the different corrections in
regard to their antiquity and importance is often the most diffi-
cult portion of such editor’s task (e. g. in Cod. Claromontanus),
and one on which he often feels it hard to satisfy his own
judgment. Corrections by the original scribe, or a contemporary
reviser, where they can be satisfactorily distinguished, must be
regarded as a portion of the testimony of the manuscript itself,
inasmuch as every carefully prepared copy was reviewed and
compared (ἀντεβλήθη), if not by the writer himself, by a skilful
person appointed for the task (ὁ διορθῶν, ὁ διορθωτής), whose
duty it was to amend manifest errors, sometimes also to insert
ornamented capitals in places which had been reserved for them ;

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 47

in later times (and as some believe at a very early period) to
set in stops, breathings and accents: in copies destined for
ecclesiastical use to place the musical notes that were to guide
the intonation of the reader. ‘These notices of revision are
sometimes met with at the end of the best manuscripts. Such
is the note in Cod. H of St Paul eyparpa και εξεθεμην προσ το ev
Kaicapia ἀντίγραφον tno βιβλιοθηκησ του aytov Ilaudirov, the
same library of the Martyr Pamphilus to which the scribe of
the Cod. Frid-August. resorted for his model?; and that in
Birch’s most valuable Urbino-Vatican. 2 (157 of the Gospels),
written for the Emperor John II (1118—1143), wherein at the
end of the first Gospel we read κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγράφη καὶ
ἀντεβλήθη ἐκ τῶν ἐν ἱεροσολύμοις παλαιῶν ἀντιγράφων τῶν ἐν
ἁγίω ὄρει [Athos] ἀποκειμένων : similar subscriptions are ap-
pended to the other Gospels. See also Evan. A. 20. 164. 262.
300. 876; Act. 15. 83, in the third section of this chapter.

18. We have next to give some account of ancient divisions
of the text, as found in manuscripts of the New Testament,
which must be carefully noted by the student, as few copies are
without one or more of them.

(1). So far as we know at present, the oldest still extant are
those of the Codex Vaticanus, which are printed from its margin in
Mai’s second edition. These sections seem to have been formed for
the purpose of reference, and a new one always commences where
there is some break in the sense. Many, however, at least in
the Gospels, consist of but one of our modern verses, and they
are so unequal in length as to be rather inconvenient for actual
use. St Matthew contains 170 of these divisions, St Mark 62,
St Luke 152, St John 80. In the Acts of the Apostles are two
sets of sections, 86 longer and in an older hand, 69 smaller and

1 The following subscription to the book of Ezra (and a very similar one
follows Esther) in the Cod. Frid-August. (fol. 13. 1) will show the care bestowed
on the most ancient copies even of the Septuagint. ἀντεβληθη προσ παλαιωτατον
λιαν avrvypapoy δεδιορθωμενον χειρὶ του αγιου μαρτυροσ Ilaudidou" ὁπερ αντιγραῴον
προσ TW τελει ὑποσημειωσισ τισ ἴδιοχειροσ αὐτου ὕπεκειτο EXOVTA ουτωσ᾽ μετελημῴφθη
και διορθωθη προσ ta εἕξαπλα ωὡριγενουσ᾽ Αντωνινοσ avTeBadev* ἸΠαμῴφιλοσ διορ-
θωσα. Tregelles suggests that the work of the διορθώτης or corrector was pro-
bably of a critical character, the office of the ἀντιβάλλων or comparer rather to
eliminate mere clerical errors (Treg. Horne, 11, p. 85).

48 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

more recent. Each of these also begins after a break in the
sense, but they are quite independent of each other, as a larger
section will sometimes commence in the middle of a smaller, the
latter being in no wise a subdivision of the former. Thus the
greater I’ opens Acts ii. 1, in the middle of the lesser 8, which
extends from Acts i. 15 to ii. 4. As in most manuscripts, so in
this, the Catholic Epistles follow the Acts, and in them and in
St Paul’s Epistles there are also two sets of sections, only that
in the Epistles the older sections are the more numerous. The
Pauline Epistles are reckoned throughout as one book in the
elder notation, with however this remarkable peculiarity, that
though in the Vatican itself the Epistle to the Hebrews stands
next after the second to the Thessalonians, and on the same leaf
with zt, the sections are arranged as if it stood between the Epis-
tles to the Galatians and Ephesians; for whereas that to the
Galatians ends with § 58, that to the Ephesians begins with
§ 70, and the numbers proceed regularly down to § 93, with
which the second to the Thessalonians ends. The Epistle to the
Hebrews which then follows opens with § 59; the last section
extant opens Hebr. ix. 11, and the manuscript ends abruptly at
καθα v.14. It plainly appears, then, that the sections of the
Codex Vaticanus must have been copied from some yet older
document, in which the Epistle to the Hebrews preceded that to
the Ephesians. For a list of the more modern divisions in the
Epistles see the Table in p. 58 below. The Vatican sections of
the Gospels have been recently observed by Tregelles in one
other copy, the palimpsest Codex Zacynthius of St Luke (8),
which he is preparing for publication.

(2). Hardly less ancient, and indeed ascribed by some to
Tatian the Harmonist, the disciple of Justin Marty?, is the di-
vision of the Gospels into larger chapters (κεφάλαια majora,
called in the Latin copies dreves), or titles (rérXov), which latter
name they bear from the circumstance that not only is the sacred
narrative distributed by them into sections, but the title, or gene-
ral summary of contents, is appended to the numeral, either in a
separate table preceding each Gospel, or at the top and bottom
of the pages, or (what is usual enough) in both ways in the same
manuscript. It is strange that in none of the four Gospels does
the first section stand at its commencement. In St Matthew

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 49

section A begins at chap. il. verse 1, and has for its title περὶ
τῶν μάγων: in St Mark at chap. 1. v. 23, περὶ τοῦ δαιμονιζομέ-
νου: in St Luke at ch. ii. v. 1, περὶ τῆς ἀπογραφῆς: in St John
at ch. ii. νυ. 1, περὶ τοῦ ἐν Kava γάμου. Mill accounts for this
circumstance by supposing that in the first copies the titles
at the head of each Gospel were reserved till last for more
splendid illumination, and thus eventually forgotten (Proleg.
N. T. § 355); Griesbach holds, that the general inscriptions of
each Gospel, Kata Mar@aiov, Kata Μάρκον, Kc. were regarded
as the special titles of the first sections also. On either suppo-
sition, however, it is hard to explain how what was really the
second section came to be numbered as the first; and it is worth
notice that the same arrangement takes place in the κεφάλαια
(though these are of a later date) of all the other books of the
New Testament except the Acts, 2 Corinth., Ephes., 1 Thess.,
Hebrews, James, 1, 2 Peter, 1 John, and the Apocalypse: e.g.
the first section of the Epistle to the Romans opens ch. i. v. 18,
Πρῶτον peta τὸ προοίμιον, περὶ κρίσεως τῆς κατὰ ἐθνῶν τῶν
οὐ φυλασσόντων τὰ φυσικά.

The τέτλοι in St Matthew amount to 68, in St Mark to 48,
in St Luke to 83, in St John to 18. This mode of division is
found in the Codices Alexandrinus and Ephraemi of the fifth
century, and in the Codex Nitriensis of the sixth ; each of which
have tables of them prefixed to the several Gospels: but the
Codices Alexandrinus and Dublinensis of St Matthew, and that
portion of the purple Cotton fragment which is in the Vatican,
exhibit them in their usual position, at the top and bottom of
the pages. Thus it appears that even if no trace of these τέτλοι
be extant in the Sinai manuscript (on which point Tischendorf is
silent), they were too generally diffused in the fifth century, not
to have originated at an earlier period ; although we must concede
that the κεφάλαιον spoken of by Clement of Alexandria (S¢ro-
mat. I.) when quoting Dan. xii. 12, or by Athanasius (6. Arium)
on Act. il., and the Capitulum mentioned by Tertullian (Ad
Uxorem 11. 2) in reference to 1 Cor. vii. 12, contain no certain
allusions to any specific divisions of the sacred text, but only to
the particular paragraphs or passages in which their citations
stand. But that the contrary habit has grown inveterate}, it

1 And this too in spite of the lexicographer Suidas: Tirdos διαφέρει κεφαλαίου"

καὶ ὁ μὲν Mar@atos τίτλους ἔχει ξη΄, κεφάλαια δὲ τνέ.
4

50 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

were much to be desired that the term τίτλοι should be applied
to these longer divisions, at least in the Gospels, and that of
κεφάλαια reserved for the smaller sections (κεφάλαια minora, as
they are sometimes called) which we now proceed to explain.

(3). The Ammonian sections, or κεφάλαια proper, were not
constructed, as the Vatican divisions and the τίτλου, for the purpose
of easy reference, or distributed like them according to the breaks
in the sense, but for a wholly different purpose. So far as we
can ascertain, the design of Tatian’s Harmony was simply to
present to Christian readers a single connected history of our
Lord, by taking from the four Evangelists indifferently whatso-
ever best suited his purpose’. As this plan could scarcely be
executed without omitting some portions of the sacred text, it is
not surprising that Tatian, without any evil intention, should
have incurred the grave charge of mutilating Holy Scripture*.
A more scholar-like and useful attempt was subsequently made
by Ammonius of Alexandria, in the third century, who, by the
side of St Matthew’s Gospel which he selected as his standard,
arranged in parallel columns, as it would seem, the correspond-
ing passages of the other three Evangelists, so as to exhibit
them all at once to the reader’s eye; St Matthew in his proper
order, the rest asthe necessity of abiding by St Matthew’s order
prescribed. This, at least, is the account given by the celebrated
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, the Church historian, who in the
fourth century, in his letter to Carpianus, describes his own most
ingenious system of Harmony, as founded on the labours of Am-
monius®. It has been generally thought that the κεφάλαια, of

1'O Taravbs, συνάφειάν τινα καὶ συναγωγὴν οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως τῶν εὐαγγελίων
συνθείς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων τοῦτο προσωνόμασεν" ὃ καὶ παρά τισιν εἰσέτι νῦν φέρεται.
Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Iv. 29.

2 Ambros. in Prowm, Luc, seems to aim at Tatian when he says “ Plerique
etiam ex quatuor Evangelii libris in unum ea que venenatis putaverunt asser-
tionibus convenientia referserunt.” Eusebius H. Τὸ, tv. 29 charges him on report
with invproving not the Gospels, but the Epistles: rod δὲ ἀποστόλου φασὶ rod-
μῆσαι τινὰς αὐτὸν μεταφράσαι φωνάς, ὡς ἐπιδιορθούμενον αὐτῶν τὴν τῆς φράσεως
σύνταξιν,

8 "Αμμώνιος μὲν ὁ ᾿Αλεξανδρεύς, πολλήν, ὡς εἰκός, φιλοπονίαν καὶ σπουδὴν εἰσαγ-
ηοχώς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ἡμῖν καταλέλοιπεν εὐαγγέλιον, τῷ κατὰ Ματθαῖον τὰς
ὁμοφώνους τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν περικοπὰς παραθείς, ὡς ἐξ ἀνάγκης συμβῆναι τὸν

τῆς ἀκολουθίας εἱρμὸν τῶν τριῶν διαφθαρῆναι, ὅσον ἐπὶ τῷ ὕφει τῆς ἀναγνώσεως.
Epist. ad Carpian.

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 51

which St Matthew contains 355, St Mark 236, St Luke 342,
St John 232, were made by Ammonius for the purpose of his
work, and they have commonly received the name of the Am-
monian sections: but this opinion has been called in question by
Bp Lloyd (Nov. Test. Oxon. 1827, Monitum pp. vili—xi), who
strongly urges that, in his Epistle to Carpianus, Eusebius not
only refrains from ascribing these numerical divisions to Ammo-
nius, but almost implies that they had their origin at the same
time with his own ten canons, with which they are so intimately
connected’. That they were essential to Eusebius’ scheme is
plain enough: their place in Ammonius’ parallel Harmony is not
easily understood, unless indeed (what is nowhere stated, but
rather the contrary), he did not set the passages from the other
Gospels at full length by the side of St Matthew’s, but only
these numerical references to them’.

There is, however, one ground for hesitation before we ascribe
the sections, as well as the canons, to Eusebius; viz. that not a
few ancient manuscripts (e.g. Codd. FHY) contain the former,
while they omit the latter. Of palimpsests indeed it may be
said with reason, that the rough process which so nearly obli-
terated the ink of the older writing, would completely remove the
coloured paint (κιννάβαρις, vermilion, prescribed by Eusebius,
though blue or green is occasionally found) in which the canons
were invariably noted; hence we need not wonder at their absence
from the Codices Ephraemi, Nitriensis, Dublinensis, Codd. TW?
of Tischendorf, and the Wolfenbiittel fragments (P, Q), in all
which the sections are yet legible inink. The Codex Sinaiticus
contains both; but Tischendorf decidedly pronounces them to be

1 1 subjoin Eusebius’ own words (Epist. ad Carpian.) from which no one would
infer that the sections were not his, as well as the canons. Αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἣ τῶν
ὑποτεταγμένων κανόνων ὑπόθεσις" ἡ δὲ σαφὴς αὐτῶν διήγησις, ἔστιν Hoe. Ἔφ᾽ ἑκάστῳ
τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων ἀριθμός τις πρόκειται κατὰ μέρος, ἀρχόμενος ἀπὸ τοῦ
πρώτου, εἶτα δευτέρου, καὶ τρίτου, καὶ καθεξῆς προϊὼν δι’ ὅλου μέχρι τοῦ τέλους τοῦ
βιβλίου [the sections]. Καθ’ ἕκαστον δὲ ἀριθμὸν ὑποσημείωσις διὰ κινναβάρεως πρό-
κειται [the canons], δηλοῦσα ἐν ποίῳ τῶν δέκα κανόνων κείμενος ὁ ἀριθμὸς τυγχάνει.

5. Something of this kind, however, must be the plan adopted in Codex E of the
Gospels, as described by Tregelles, who himself collated it. ‘‘[It has] the Ammonian
sections; but instead of the Eusebian canons there is a kind of harmony of the
Gospels noted at the foot of each page, by a reference to the parallel sections
of the other Evangelists.” Horne’s Introd. Vol. 11. p. 200. Yet the canons also
stand in this copy under the Ammonian sections: only the table of Eusebian canons
is wanting.

4—-2

52 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

in a later hand. In the Codex Bezae too, as well as the Codex
Cyprius (K), even the Ammonian sections, without the canons,
are by a later hand, though the latter has prefixed the list
or table of the canons. Of the oldest copies the Codex Alex-
andrinus, Tischendorf’s Codd. W* ©, and the Cotton fragment
(N) alone contain both the sections and canons. Even in more
modern cursive books the latter are often deficient, though the
others are present. ‘This we have observed in Burney 23, in the .
British Museum, of the twelfth century, although the Epistle to
Carpianus stands at the beginning; in a rather remarkable copy
of about the twelfth century, in the Cambridge University Li-
brary (Mm. 6. 9, Scholz Evan. 440), which, however, the table of
canons but not the Epistle to Carpianus precedes; in the Gon-
ville and Caius Gospels of the 12th century (Evan. 59), and in a
manuscript of about the thirteenth century at Trinity College,
Cambridge (B. x. 17)1. These facts certainly indicate that in
the judgment of critics and transcribers, whatever that judgment
may be deemed worth, the Ammonian sections had a previous
existence to the Eusebian canons, as well as served for an inde-
pendent purpose.

In his letter to Carpianus, their inventor clearly yet briefly
describes the purpose of his canons, ten in number. ‘The first
contains a list of 71 places in which all the four Evangelists
have a narrative, discourse, or saying in common: the second of
111 places in which the three Matthew, Mark, Luke agree: the
third of 22 places common to Matthew, Luke, John: the fourth
of 26 passages common to Matthew, Mark, John: the fifth
of 82 places in which the two Matthew, Luke coincide: the
sixth of 47 places wherein Matthew, Mark agree: the seventh of
7 places common to Matthew and John: the eighth of 14 places
common to Luke and Mark: the ninth of 21 places in which
Luke and John agree: the tenth of 62 passages of Matthew,
21 of Mark, 71 of Luke and 97 of John which have no parallels,
but are peculiar to a single Evangelist. Under each of the
1165 Ammonian sections, in its proper place in the margin of
a manuscript, is put in scloril ink the number of that Euse-
bian canon to which it refers; on searching for that Ammonian

1 To this list of manuscripts of the Gospels which have the Ammonian sections

without the Eusebian canons add Codd. 54, 60, 68 (to be described in the third
section of this chapter), and probably some others (e.g. Cod. 203).

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 53

section in the proper table or canon, there will also be found the
parallel place or places in the other Gospels, each indicated by
its proper numeral, and so readily searched out. A single
example will serve to explain our meaning. In the facsimile
of the Cotton fragment (Plate v. No. 14), in the margin of the

passage (John xv. 20) we see tea , where PA® (139) is the

proper section of St John, I (3) the number of the canon.
On searching the third Eusebian table we read MT. 4 A. vn

1Q.pr0, and thus we learn that the first clause of John xv. 20
is parallel in sense to the 90th (4) section of St Matthew

(x. 24), and to the 58th (vn) of St Luke (vi. 40). The ad-
vantage of such a system of parallels to the exact study of the
Gospels is too evident to need insisting on.

(4). The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles are also
divided into chapters (κεφάλαια) in design precisely the same as
the τέίτλοι of the Gospel, and nearly resembling them in length.
Since there is no trace of these chapters in the two great Codices
Alexandrinus and Ephraemi, of the fifth century (which yet
exhibit the τέτλοι and Ammonian sections), it seems reasonable
to assume that they are of later date. They are sometimes con-
nected with the name of Euthalius, deacon of Alexandria, and
afterwards Bishop of Sulci!, whom we have already spoken of,
as the zeputed author of Scriptural stichometry (above, p. 45).
We learn, however, from Euthalius’ own Prologue to his edition
of St Paul’s Epistles (A.p. 458), that the “summary of the
chapters,’ and consequently the numbers of the chapters them-
selves, was taken from the work of “ one of our wisest and pious
fathers*,” i.e. some Bishop that he does not wish to particu-
larise, whom Mill (Proleg. N. T. § 907) conjectures to be
Theodore of Mopsuestia, who lay under the censure of the
Church. Soon after® the publication of St Paul’s Epistles, on

1 Sulci in Sardinia is the only Bishop’s see of the name I can find in Carol.
a Sancto Paulo’s Geographia Sacra (1703), or in Bingham’s Antiquities, Bk. rx,
Chapp. 11, vil. Horne and even Tregelles speak of Sulca in Egypt, but I have
searched in vain for any such town or see.

2 καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἐπιστολὴν προτάξομεν Thy τῶν κεφαλαίων ἔκθεσιν, ἑνὶ τῶν σοφω-
τάτων τινὶ καὶ φιλοχρίστων πατέρων ἡμῶν πεπονημένην,

3 Αὐτίκα δῆτα is his own expression.

54 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

the suggestion of one Athanasius, then a priest and afterwards
Patriarch of Alexandria, Euthalius put forth a similar edition
of the Acts and Catholic Epistles, also divided into chapters,
with a summary of contents at the head of each chapter, though
even these he is thought to have derived (at least in the
Acts) from the manuscript of Pamphilus the Martyr [d. a.p. 308],
to whom the very same chapters are ascribed in a document
published by Montfaucon (Bibliotheca Coislin. p. 78); the
rather as Euthalius fairly professes to have compared his book
in the Acts and Catholic Epistles “with the copies in the
library at Cesarea’’ which once belonged to “ Eusebius the
friend of Pamphilus.”” The Apocalypse still remained to be
divided, about the end of the fifth century, by Andreas, Arch-
bishop of the Cappadocian Cesarea, into twenty-four paragraphs
(λόγοι), corresponding to the number of the elders about the
throne (Apoc. iv. 4); each paragraph being subdivided into
three chapters (κεφάλαια). The summaries which Andreas wrote
of his seventy-two chapters are still reprinted in Mill’s and
other large editions of the Greek Testament.

(5). To Euthalius has been also referred a division of the
Acts into sixteen lessons (avayvéces or ἀναγνώσματα) and of
the Pauline Epistles into thirty-one; but these lessons are quite
different from the much shorter ones adopted by the Greek
Church. He is also said to have numbered the quotations from
the Old Testament in each Epistle of St Paul, which are still
noted in many of our manuscripts, and to have been the
author of that reckoning of the στίχοι which is annexed in most
copies to the Gospels, as well as to the Acts and Epistles.
Besides the division of the text into στίχοι or lines (above, p. 44)
we find in the Gospels alone another division into ῥήματα or
ῥήσεις “sentences,” differing but little from the or/yor in num-
ber. Of these last the precise numbers vary in different
copies, though not considerably: whether that variation arose
from the circumstance that ancient numbers were represented by
letters and so easily corrupted, or from a different mode of
arranging the στίχοι adopted by the various scribes.

19. It is proper to state that the subscriptions (ὑπογραφαὶ)
appended to St Paul’s Epistles in many manuscripts, and retained

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 55

even in the Authorised English version of the New Testament,
are also said to be the composition of Euthalius. In the best
copies they are somewhat shorter in form, but in any shape they
do no credit to the care or skill of their author, whoever he may
be. ‘Six of these subscriptions,” writes Paley in that master-
piece of acute reasoning, the Hore Pauline, “are false or im-
probable ;” that is they are either absolutely contradicted by the
contents of the epistle [e.g. 1 Cor. Galat. 1 Tim.], or are diffi-
cult to be reconciled with them [e.g. 1, 2 Thess. Tit.] (Hor.
Paul. Ch. xy).

The subscriptions to the Gospels have not, we believe, been
assigned to any particular author, and being seldom found in
printed copies of the Greek Testament or in modern versions,
are little known to the general reader. In the earliest manu-
scripts the subscriptions, as well as the titles of the books, were
of the simplest character. Kata Ma@@aiov, κατὰ Μάρκον, ἄς.
is all that the Codex Vaticanus (and apparently Cod. Sinaiti-
cus also) has, whether at the beginning or the end. Evay-
γέλιον κατὰ MarOaiov is the subscription to the first Gospel
in the Codex Alexandrinus; εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον is placed
at the beginning of the second Gospel in the same manu-
script, and the selfsame words at the end of it by Codices
Alex. and Ephraem: in the Codex Bezae (in which St
John stands second in order) we merely read εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ
Μαθθαῖον ἐτελέσθη, ἄρχεται εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην. ‘The
same is the case throughout the New Testament. After a while
the titles become more elaborate, and the subscriptions afford
more information, the truth of which it would hardly be safe to
vouch for. The earliest worth notice are found in the Codex
Cyprius of the eighth or ninth century, which, together with
those of several other copies, are given in Scholz’s Prolegomena
N.T. Vol. 1. pp. xxix, xxx. Ad fin. Matthei: To κατὰ Mar@aiov
εὐαγγέλιον ἐξεδόθη ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐν ἱεροσολύμοις μετὰ χρόνους ἢ
[ὀκτὼ] τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀναλήψεως. Ad fin. Marci: To κατὰ
Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον ἐξεδόθη μετὰ χρόνους δέκα τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ
ἀναλήψεως. Those to the other two Gospels exactly resemble
St Mark’s, that of St Luke however being dated 15, that of
St John 82 years after our Lord’s Ascension, periods in all
probability too early to be correct.

56 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

20. The foreign matter so often inserted in later manuscripts
has more value for the antiquarian than the critic. That splendid
copy of the Gospels Lambeth 1178, of the 10th or 11th century,
has more such matter than is often found, set off by fine illumi-
nations. At the end of each of the first three Gospels (but not
of the fourth) are several pages relating to them extracted from
Cosmas Indicopleustes, who made the voyage which procured
him his cognomen about A.D. 522; also some iambic verses of
no great excellence, as may well be supposed. In golden letters
we read: ad jin. Matth. ἰστέον ὅτι τὸ κατὰ ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον
ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτων γραφὲν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐν ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐξεδόθη"
ἑρμηνεύθη δὲ ὑπὸ ἰωάννου" ἐξηγεῖται δὲ τὴν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον τοῦ
χῦ γένεσιν, καί ἐστιν ἀνθρωπόμορφον τοῦτο τὸ εὐωγγέλιον. The
last clause alludes to Apoc. iv. 7, wherein the four living crea-
tures were currently believed to be typical of the four Gospels}.
Ad fin. Marc. ἰστέον ὅτι τὸ κατὰ μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον ὑπηγορεύθη
ὑπὸ πέτρου ἐν ῥώμηι' ἐποιήσατο δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ προ-
φητικοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἐξ ὕψους ἐπιόντος τοῦ ἡσαΐου: τὴν πτερω-
τικὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ εὐωγγελίου δεικνύς. Ad fin. Luc. ἰστέον ὅτι
τὸ κατὰ λουκᾶν εὐαγγέλιον ὑπηγορεύθη ὑπὸ πέτρου ἐν ῥώμηι' ἅτε
δὲ ἱερατικοῦ χαρακτῆρος ὑπτάρχοντος ἀπὸ ζαχαρίου τοῦ ἱερέως
θυμιῶντος ἤρξατο. The reader will desire no more of this. The
oldest manuscript known to be accompanied by a eatena (or
continuous commentary by different authors) is the palimpsest
Codex Zacynthius (2 of Tregelles), an uncial of the eighth
century. Such books are not very common, but there is a
very full commentary in minute letters, surrounding the large
text in a noble copy of the Gospels, of the 12th century,
now belonging to Sir Thomas Phillipps (Middle Hill 13975),
yet uncollated; another of St Paul’s Epistles (No. 27) belongs
to the Public Library at Cambridge (Ff. 1.30); and the Apo-
calypse is often attended with the exposition of Andreas (p. 54),
or Arethas, also Archbishop of the Cappadocian Cesarea in the

1 The whole mystery is thus unfolded (apparently by Cosmas) in Lamb. 1178,
p- 159. Kal yap τὰ Χερουβὶμ τετραπρόσωπα' καὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν εἰκόνες τῆς
πραγματείας τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ: τὸ γὰρ ὅμοιον λέοντι, τὸ ἔμπρακτον καὶ βασιλικὸν καὶ
ἡγεμονικὸν [John i. 1—3] χαρακτηρίζει: τὸ δὲ ὅμοιον μόσχωι, τὴν ἱερουργικὴν καὶ
ἱερατικὴν [Luke i. 8] ἐμφανίζει: τὸ δὲ ἀνθρωποειδές, τὴν σάρκωσιν [Matth. i. 18]
Biaypdper’ τὸ δὲ ὅμοιον ἀετῶι, τὴν ἐπιφοίτησιν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος [Mark i, 2]

ἐμφανίζει.

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: δὴ

tenth century, or (what is more usual) with a sort of epitome
of them (e.g. Parham No. 17), above, below and in the margin
beside the text, in much smaller characters. In cursive manu-
scripts only the Subject (ὑπόθεσις), especially that written by
(Ecumenius in the tenth century, sometimes stands as a Pro-
logue before each book, but not so often before the Gospels
or Apocalypse as the Acts and Epistles. Before the Acts we
oceasionally meet with Euthalius’ Chronology of St Paul’s Tra-
vels, or another ᾿Αποδημία ἸΤαύλου. The Leicester manuscript
contains between the Pauline Epistles and the Acts (1) An
Exposition of the Creed, and statement of the errors condemned
by the seven general Councils, ending with the second at Nice.
(2) Lives of the Apostles, followed by an exact description
of the limits of the five Patriarchates. Similar treatises may
be more frequent in manuscripts of the Greek Testament than
we are at present aware of.

21. We have not thought it needful to insert in this place
either a list of the τέτλου of the Gospels, or of the κεφάλαια of the
rest of the New Testament, or the tables of the Husebian canons,
inasmuch as they are all accessible in such ordinary books as
Stephens’ Greek Testament 1550 and Mill’s of 1707, 1711.
The Eusebian canons are given in Bishop Lloyd’s Oxford Greek
Test. of 1827 &c. and in Tischendorf’s of 1859. We subjoin,
however, for the sake of comparison, a tabular view of ancient
and modern divisions: the numbers of the ῥήματα and στέχοι in
the Gospels are derived from the most approved sources, but a
synopsis of the variations of manuscripts in this respect has
been drawn up by Scholz, Prolegomena N. T. Vol. 1. Cap. v.
pp- XXVili, xxix.!

1 The numbers of the Gospel στίχοι in our table are taken from the uncial
copies Codd. GS and 27 cursives named by Scholz: those of the ῥήματα from
Codd. 9. 13. 124 and 7 others. In the ῥήματα he cites no other variation than
that Cod. 339 has 2822 for St Matthew: but Mill states that Cod. 48 (Bodl. 7)
has 1676 for Mark, 2507 for Luke (N. T. Proleg. §. 1429).

In the στίχοι, a few straggling manuscripts fluctuate between 3397? and 1474

for Matthew; 2006 and rcoo for Mark; 3827 and 2000 for Luke; 2300 and 1300
for John. But the great mass of authorities stand as we have represented.

ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

TABLE OF ANCIENT AND MODERN DIVISIONS OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT.

Vatican MS.

7 κεφά- ‘ <s Modern |Mod
scctions|sectons| ρα “τ πα | | canter | verses.
Matthew......| 1700} — | 68 355 | 2560 | 2522 | 28 | τογῖ
Mark 60... 1 48 236 | 1616 | 1675 | τό 678
Wake. δεκτὸν 152} — 83 342 | 2740 | 3803 | 24 | r151
DOWN cecerscce 80} — 18 232 | 2024 | 1938 | 21 880

Euthal oe
κεφάλ ae

Weis jcéu νοῦς 36 | 69 49... Z| 2524 16 | 28 | 1007
JAMES «0.0000 9 5 6 Ξ WW] 242 5 108
1 Peter cess 8 3 8 |B] 236 5 105
2 Peter ......|desunt| 2 4 an heey 3 61
‘jon τὰ 3 7 [ΒΞ] 274 5 | 105
2 ὅοΒῃ......... I 2 I δ Σ 30 I 13
3 JON... ...... I |desunt 1 ἢ =. 32 I 15
Jude: \-.ccseces 2 |desunt} 4 Be 68 I 25
Romans ...... ἘΞ 8 19 ee = | 920 5 16 433
1 Corinth. ...| ὦ 8 9,,|,.@.8 | 870 5 16 437

‘ori oe |¢ 19 5 =

2 Corinth. ... 38 J 10 | ap 59° 4 13 256
Galat, .....000. Beit Bodie oul ΞΡ ΕΟ ἥν: 6 | 149
Ephes. ......... ἘΝ ᾿ 3 το [ὃ τ 312 2 6 [55
Philipp. ...... = Β " 7 1Ξ Ξ 208 2 4 104
Coloss. ........- a 3 το | & =| 208 2 4 95

1 Thess τε Ὁ aie 193 I 5 8
ΟῚ Ὁ ὦ 2 7 Ξ ἃ 9 9

2 τεὸς eeceee 5 . 2 6 | Fe 106 1 3 47
Geli. “ιν. ὩΣ Bide 18 | 8. i 230 I 6 113
5. Π| δὶ San aneakal ea 2 ΔΆ, 9 Ξ - 172 Ι 4 83
Tits * ccccesses ἢ 3 6 ὃ» 98 I 3 46
Philem. ...... fp ire 5 PE Φ Dn I 25

ἡ ἴο ᾷ es
Hebrews ...... ie 23.1, «8 | ORs 13 | 303
χα
Apocalypse ... 24 λόγοι, 72 κεφάλαια, 22 405

1800 στίχοι.

22. On the divisions into chapters and verses prevailing in
our modern Bibles we need not dwell long. For many centuries
the Latin Church used the Greek τίτλον (which they called
breves) and Euthalian κεφάλαια, and some of their copies even
retained the calculation by στίχοι: but about A.D. 1248 Car-
dinal Ilugo de Santo Caro, while preparing a Concordance, or

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 59

index of declinable words, for the whole Bible, divided it into its
present chapters, subdividing them in turn into several parts by
placing the letters A, B, C, D &c. in the margin, at equal
distances from each other, as we still see in many old printed
books, 6. g. Stephens’ N.'T. of 1550. Cardinal Hugo’s divisions
(unless indeed he merely adopted them from Lanfrane or some
other scholar) soon took possession of copies of the Latin Vul-
gate; they gradually obtained a place in later Greek manu-
scripts, especially those written in the West of Europe, and are
found in the earliest printed and all later editions of the Greek
Testament, though still unknown to the Eastern Church. They
certainly possess no strong claim on our preference, although
they cannot now be superseded. The chapters are inconve-
niently and capriciously unequal in length; occasionally too
they are distributed with much lack of judgment. Thus Matth.
xv. 39 belongs to ch. xvi, and perhaps ch. xix. 30 to ch. xx;
Mark ν. 1 and ix. 1 properly appertain to the preceding chapters;
Luke xxi. 1—4 had better be united with ch. xx, as in Mark xii,
4144; Acts v. might as well commence with Acts iv. 32; Acts
vili. 1 (or at least its first clause) should not haye been separated
from ch. vii; Acts xxi. concludes with strange abruptness. Bp.
Terrot (on Ernesti’s Institutes, Vol. 1. p. xxi.) rightly affixes
1 Cor. iv. 1—5 to ch. 11; 1 Cor. xi. 1 belongs to ch. x; Col. iv. 1
must clearly go with ch. i. Ι

In commendation of the modern verses still less can be said.
As they are stated to have been constructed after the model of
the ancient στίχοι (called “versus” in the Latin manuscripts)
we have placed in the Table the exact number of each for every
book in the New Testament. Of the στίχοι we reckon 19241 in
all, of the modern verses 7959", so that on the average (for we
have seen that the manuscript variations in the number of στίχοι
are but inconsiderable) we may calculate about five στίχοι to
every two modern verses. The fact is that some such division is
simply ¢ndispensable to every accurate reader of Scripture; and
Cardinal Hugo’s divisions by letters of the alphabet, as well as
those adopted by Sanctes Pagninus in his Latin version of the
whole Bible (1528), having proved inconveniently large, Robert
Stephens, the justly celebrated printer and editor of the Greek

1 Our English version, by dividing 2 Cor. xiii. 12 into two, contains 7960
verses.

60 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

Testament, undertook to form a system of verse-divisions, taking
for his model the short verses into which the Hebrew Bible had
already been divided, as it would seem by Rabbi Nathan, in the
preceding century. We are told by Henry Stephens (Pref.
N. T. 1576) that his father Robert executed this design on
a journey from Paris to Lyons “inter equitandum ;” that is, we
presume, while resting at the inns on the road. Certain it is,
that although every such division must be in some measure
arbitrary, a very little care would have spared us many of the
disadvantages attending that which Robert Stephens first pub-
lished at Geneva in his Greek Testament of 1551, from which
it was introduced into the Geneva English Testament of 1557,
into Beza’s Greek Testament of 1565, and thence into all
subsequent editions. It is now too late to correct the errors of
the verse-divisions, but they can be neutralised, at least in
a great degree, by the plan adopted by modern critics, of
banishing both the verses and the chapters into the margin, and
breaking the text into paragraplis, better suited to the sense.
The pericope or sections of Bengel* (whose labours will be
described in their proper place) have been received with general
approbation, and adopted, with some modification, by several
recent editors.

23. We now come to the contents of manuscripts of the Greek
Testament, and must distinguish regular copies of the sacred
volume or of parts of it, from Lectionaries, or Church-lesson
books, containing only extracts, arranged in the order of Divine
Service daily throughout the year. The latter we will consider
presently: with regard to the former it is right to bear in mind,
that comparatively few copies of the whole New Testament
remain; the usual practice being to write the four Gospels in
one volume, the Acts and Epistles in another: manuscripts of
the Apocalypse, which was little used for public worship, being
much rarer than those of the other books. Occasionally the
Gospels, Acts and Epistles form a single volume; sometimes
the Apocalypse is added to other books; as to the Pauline
Epistles in Lambeth 1186, or even to the Gospels, in a later
hand (e.g. Cambridge Publ. Libr. Dd. 9. 69: Gospels No. 60,

1 Novum Testamentum Grecum. Edente Jo. Alberto Bengelio, Tubing
1734. 4to.

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 61

dated A.D. 1297). The Apocalypse, being a short work, is often
found bound up in volumes containing very miscellaneous
matter, (e.g. Vatican. 2066 or B; Harleian. 5678, No. 31; and
Baroce. 48, No. 28). The Codex Sinaiticus of Tischendorf
is the more precious, that it happily exhibits the whole New
Testament complete: so would the Codices Alexandrinus and
Ephraemi, but that they are sadly mutilated: no other uncial
copies have this advantage, and very few cursives. In England
only four such are known, the great Codex Leicestrensis, which
is imperfect at the beginning and end; Butler 2 (Additional
11837), dated A.p. 1357, and Additional 17469, both in the
British Museum; and Canonici 34 in the Bodleian, dated A.p.
1515—16. The Apocalypse in the well-known Codex Montfort-
ianus at Dublin is usually considered to be by a later hand.
Besides these Scholz enumerates only nineteen foreign copies of
the whole New Testament’; but twenty-seven in all out of the
vast mass of extant documents.

24, Whether copies contain the whole or a part of the sacred
volume, the general order of the books is the following : Gospels,
Acts, Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse. A soli-
tary manuscript of the fifteenth century (Venet. 10, Evan. 209)
places the Gospels between the Pauline Epistles and the Apoca-
lypse*; in the Codices Sinaiticus, Leicestrensis, Fabri (Evan.
90), and Montfortianus, as in Bodleian Canonici 34, the Pau-
line Epistles precede the Acts; the Codex Basiliensis (No. 4
of the Kpistles) and Lambeth 1182, 1183 have the Pauline
Epistles immediately after the Acts and before the Catholic
Epistles, as in our present Bibles; Scholz’s Evan. 368 stands
thus, St John’s Gospel, Apocalypse, then all the Epistles; in

1 Coislin. 199, Evan. 35; Vatic. 2080, Evan. 175; Palat. Vat. 171, Evan.
149; Lambece. 1 at Vienna, Evan. 218; Vatic. 1160, Evan. 141; Venet. 5,
Evan, 205; its alleged duplicate Venet. 10, Evan. 209; Matthaei k, Evan. 241;
Moscow Synod. 280, Evan. 242; Paris, Reg. 47, Evan. 18; Reg. 61, Evan. 263;
Vatic. 360, Evan. 131; Vat. Ottob. 66, Evan. 386; Vat. Ottob. 381, Evan. 390;
Taurin. 302, Evan. 339; Richard. 84, Evan. 368; S. Saba, το and 20, Evan. 462
and 466: perhaps he ought to have added Venet. 6, Evan. 206, which he states
to contain the whole New Testament, Proleg. N. ΤᾺ Vol. 1. p. lxxii. In Evan,
180 all except the Gospels are by a later hand.

2 I presume that the same order is found in Evan. 393, where Scholz states
‘“sec. XVI, continet epist. cath. paul. ev.” . Proleg. Ν, Τὶ, Vol. I. p. xe,

62 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

Havniens. 1 No. 234 of the Gospels (A.D. 1278) the order appears
to be Acts, Paul. Ep., Cath. Ep., Gospels; in Basil. B. vi. 27
or Cod. 1, the Gospels now follow the Acts and Epistles; while
in Evan. 175 the Apocalypse stands between the Acts and
Catholic Epistles ; in Evan. 51 the dinder has set the Gospels
last: these, however, are mere accidental exceptions to the
prevailing rule. The four Gospels are almost invariably found
in their familiar order, although in the Codex Bezae (as we partly
saw above, p. 55) they stand Matthew, John, Luke, Mark; in the
Codex Monacensis (X) John, Luke, Mark, Matthew (but two
leaves of Matthew also stand before John); in Cod. 90 (Fabri)
John, Luke, Matthew, Mark; in the Curetonian Syriac version
Matthew, Mark, John, Luke. In the Pauline Epistles that
to the Hebrews precedes the four Pastoral Epistles and immedi-
ately follows the second to the Thessalonians in the four great
Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Ephraem*: in
the copy from which the Cod. Vatican. was taken the Hebrews
followed the Galatians (above, p. 48). The Codex Claromonta-
nus, the document next in importance to these four, sets the
Colossians appropriately enough next to its kindred and contem-
poraneous Epistle to the Ephesians, but postpones that to the
Hebrews to Philemon, as in our present Bibles; an arrangement
which at first, no doubt, originated in the early scruples prevail-
ing in the western Church, with respect to the authorship and
canonical authority of that divine epistle.

25. We must now describe the Lectionaries or Service-books
of the Greek Church, in which the portions of Scripture publicly
read throughout the year are set down in chronological order,
without regard to their actual places in the sacred volume. In

1 Mr Horne in the second volume of his own Introduction (a very different
book from Dr Tregelles’, and not a worse one) tells us that in some of the few
manuscripts which contain the whole of the New Testament the books are arranged
thus: Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse, Pauline Epistles (p. 92 ed.
1834). This statement may be true of some of the foreign MSS. named in note 3,
but of the English it can refer to none except perhaps Wake 2, No 27 of Apoca-
lypse, which seems to conclude with a fragment of the Gospels.

* Tischendorf cites the following copies in which the Epistle to the Hebrews
stands in the same order as in NABC, ‘‘H [Coislin. 202] 17. 23. 47. 57. 71. 73
aliique.” Add 77. Epiphanius (adv. Her. 1. 42) says: ἄλλα δὲ ἀντίγραφα ἔχει
τὴν πρὸς ἑβραίους δεκάτην, πρὸ τῶν δύο τῶν πρὸς Τιμόθεον καὶ Τίτον.

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 63

length and general arrangement they resemble not so much the
Lessons as the Epistles and Gospels in our English Book of
Common Prayer, only that every day in the year has its own
proper portion, and the numerous Saints’ days independent services
of their own. These Lectionaries consist either of lessons from
the Gospels, and are then called Hvangelaria or Evangelistaria
(εὐαγγελιστάρια); or from the Acts and Epistles, termed Praxa-
postolos (πραξαπόστολοι) ; the general name of Lectionary is often,
though incorrectly, confined to the latter class. A few books
(called ἀποστολοευωγγέλια in Mattheei’s ξ and Burney 18) have
lessons taken both from the Gospels and the Apostolic writings.
The peculiar arrangement of Lectionaries renders them very unfit
for the hasty, partial, cursory collation which has befallen too
many manuscripts of the other class, and this circumstance, joined
with the irksomeness of using service-books never familiar to the
habits even of scholars in this part of Europe, has caused these
documents to be so little consulted, that the contents of the very
best and oldest among them have until recently been little
known. Matthaei, of whose elaborate and important edition of
of the Greek Testament (12 tom. Riga 1782—88) we shall give
an account hereafter (Chap. v.), has done excellent service in
this department; two of his best copies, the uncials B and H,
being Evangelistaria. The present writer also has collated
three noble uncials of the same kind, Arundel 547 being of the
ninth century, Parham 18 bearing date A.p. 980, Harleian. 5598,
A.D. 995. Not a few other uncial Lectionaries remain quite
neglected, for though none of them perhaps are older than the
eighth century, the ancient character was retained for these
costly and splendid service-books till about the eleventh century
(Montfauc. Palaeogr. Graec. p. 260), before which time the cur-
sive hand was generally used in other Biblical manuscripts.
There is, of course, no place in a lectionary for divisions by
κεφάλαια, for the Ammonian sections or canons of Eusebius.
The division of the New Testament into Church-lessons was,
however, of far more remote antiquity than the employment of
separate volumes to contain them. ‘Towards the end of the
fourth century, that golden age of Patristic theology, Chrysostom
recognises some stated order of the lessons as familiar to all his
hearers, for he exhorts them to peruse and mark before-hand the
passages (eptxozral) of the Gospels which were to be publicly

64 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

read to them the ensuing Sunday or Saturday’. All the infor-
mation we can gather favours the notion that there was no great
difference between the calendar of Church-lessons in earlier and
later ages. Not only do they correspond in all cases where
such agreement is natural, as in the proper services for the
great feasts and fasts, but in such purely arbitrary arrangements
as the reading of the book of Genesis, instead of the Gospels,
on the week days of Lent; of the Acts all the time between
Easter and Pentecost’; or the selection of St Matthew’s history
of the Passion alone at the Liturgy on Good Fridays. The
earliest formal Synaxarion, or Table of proper lessons, now ex-
tant is prefixed to the Codex Cyprius (K) of the eighth or ninth
century; another is found in the Codex Campensis (M), which is
perhaps a little later; they are more frequently found than the
contrary in later manuscripts of every kind; while there are
comparatively few copies that have not been accommodated to
ecclesiastical use either by their original scribe or a later hand,
by means of noting the proper days for each lesson (often in
red ink) at the top or bottom or in the margin of the several
pages. In the text itself are perpetually interpolated, especially
in vermillion or red ink, the beginning (ἀρχὴ or ap*) and end-
ing (τέλος or te*) of each lesson, and the several words to be
inserted or substituted in order to suit the purpose of public
reading; from which source (as we have stated above, p. 11)
various readings have almost unavoidably sprung: e. g. in Acts
lil. 11, τοῦ ἰαθέντος χωλοῦ of the Lectionaries ultimately dis-
placed αὐτοῦ from the text itself.

We propose to annex to this section a table of lessons
throughout the year, according to the use laid down in Synaxa-
ria and Lectionaries, as well to enable the student to compare
the proper lessons of the Greek Church with our own, as to
facilitate reference to the manuscripts themselves, which are now

1 Chrysost. in Joan. Hom. X κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων ἣ καὶ κατὰ σάββατον. I cite
these words for the benefit of any one whom Dr Davidson (Bibl. Crit. Vol. τα,
p- 19) may have persuaded that σάββατον in the primitive Church meant Sunday.

2 See the passages from Augustin Tract. vi. in Joan. ; and Chrysost. Hom. vit.
ad Antioch. ; Hom, Lx11, XLVI. in Act, in Bingham’s Antiquities, Book Σιν,
Chap. m1. Sect. 3. Chrysostom even calls the arrangement τῶν πατέρων 6 νόμος.

3 August. Serm. cxtu1. de Tempore. The few verses Luke xxiii. 39—43,
John xix. 31—37 are merely wrought into one narrative with Matth, xxvii. each
in its proper place.

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 65

placed almost out of the reach of the inexperienced. On com-
paring the manner in which the terms are used by different
scribes and authors, we conceive that Synaxarion (συναξάριον) is
a general name applied to any catalogue of Church-lessons; that
tables of daily lessons are entitled Hclogadia, “‘ Selections’”’ (ἐκ-
λογάδιον τῶν δ΄ εὐαγγελιστῶν, OY TOU ἀποστόλου), and that these
have varied but slightly in the course of many ages throughout
the whole Eastern Church; that tables of Saints’ day lessons,
called Menologia (μηνολόγιον), distributed in order of the months
from September (when the new year and the indiction began) to
August, differed widely from each other, both in respect to the
lessons read and the days kept holy!. While the great feasts
remained entirely the same, different generations and provinces
and even dioceses had their favorite worthies, whose memory
they specially cherished; so that the character of the menology
(which sometimes formed a larger, sometimes but a small por-
tion of a Lectionary) will often guide us to the country and
district in which the volume itself was written. The Parham
Evangelistarium 18 affords us a conspicuous example of this
fact: coming from a region of which we know but little (Ciscissa
in Cappadocia Prima), its menology in many particulars but
little resembles those usually met with.

26. It only remains to say a few words about the notation
adopted to indicate the several classes of manuscripts of the
Greek Testament. ‘These classes are six in number; that con-
taining the Gospels, or the Acts and Catholic Epistles, or the
Pauline Epistles, or the Apocalypse, or Lectionaries of the
Gospels, or those of the Acts and Epistles. When one manu-
script (as often occurs) belongs to more than one of these classes,
its distinct parts are numbered separately, so that a copy of the
whole New ‘Testament will appear in four lists, and be reckoned
four times over. In this way we calculate that there are little
short of one thousand manuscripts proper or Lectionaries of the

1 Thus συναξάριον will include Scholz’s definition “indices lectionum ita exhi-
bet, ut anni ecclesiastici et uniuscujusque evangelii ratio habeatur” (N. T. Vol. 1,
Ῥ- 454), as exemplified by his Codex Cyprius (K) &c.; and also Suicer’s ‘‘ vitae
sanctorum et martyrum in compendium redactae, et succincta expositio solennitatis
de qua agitur” (Thes. Ecc. Tom. 11, 1108), as we find the word used in Lambeth
1178, Burney 18 &e.

66 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

Gospels, and about another thousand of all the other books put
together; whereof those of St Paul are more numerous, those of
the Apocalypse fewer than those of the Acts and Catholic Kpis-
tles. All critics are agreed in distinguishing the documents writ-
ten in the uncial character by capital letters; the custom having
originated in the accidental circumstance that the Codex Alex-
andrinus was designated as Cod. A in the lower margin of
Walton’s Polyglott. These uncials are few: in the Gospels
indeed they amount to thirty-four, but far the greater part of
these are fragments, most of them of inconsiderable length; in
the Acts they are ten; in the Catholic Epistles six; in the
Pauline Epistles fourteen (many of them fragments); in the
Apocalypse only four; Lectionaries in uncial letters are not
marked by capitals, but by Arabic numerals, like cursive
manuscripts of all classes. Michaelis judges that the use of
these numerals, which were first introduced by Wetstein (Ν, T.
1751—52), is likely to lead to confusion and faults of the press:
one can only say in reply that Mill’s mode of citing copies by
abridgments of their names (e.g. Alew. Cant. Mont. &c.) is
more cumbersome, and has been found just as liable to error.
A more serious cause of complaint is the facility with which
documents have been admitted to crowd a list, when they have
not been subjected to a thorough collation; many without being
examined even cursorily, Such a practice, commenced by Wet-
stein, too much countenanced even by Griesbach (N, Τ᾿, 1796—
1806), conscientious labourer though he was in this field of
critical study, was carried to its height by Scholz (N. ἽΝ
1830—36), who professes to have collated entire no more than
twenty-two of the six hundred and seven manuscripts which his
edition added to previous catalogues. On this point we shall
enter more into detail hereafter (Chap, V.); the result, however,
has been to convey to the inexperienced reader a totally false
notion of our actual acquaintance with the contents of the cur-
sive or later copies. Hence, while we owe a large debt of
gratitude to those who have done so much for the uncial
manuscripts of the Greek ‘Testament, and freely accord the
highest praise to Tischendorf and ‘Tregelles for their indefatiga-
ble exertions in making them known to us, we are bound to
state that the long list of the cursives is at present but a snare
and a delusion; “a splendid wretchedness,”’ as it has been

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 67

called by one who knows its nature well. FEven the catalogue
itself of the later manuscripts is full of mis-statements, of repe-
titions and loose descriptions, which we have tried to remedy
and supply, so far as our means of information extend. In
describing the uncials (as we purpose to do in the next section)
our course is tolerably plain; but the lists that comprise the
third and fourth sections of this chapter, and which respectively
detail the cursive manuscripts and Lectionaries of the Greek
Testament, must be regarded only as a kind of first approxima-
tion to.what such an enumeration ought to be, though much
pains and time have been spent upon them: the comparatively
few copics which seem to be sufficiently known are distinguished
by an asterisk from,their less fortunate kindred. Meanwhile
the student is warned against the practice of Scholz, and not of
Scholz only, who habitually alleges in defence of readings of
the received text for which we know of almost no specific autho-
rity whatever, “rec. cwn multis recentibus familia, constant.
codicilus',” “rec. cum plerisque codicibus,” and such like ex-
pressions, which will be found on enquiry to prove nothing, save
the writer’s profound ignorance of what the mass of copies
contains. Indeed the whole system of representing and of
citing the cursive manuscripts is so radically unsound, that
Tischendorf in his last edition (N.'T. 1859) has chosen to add
nothing to Scholz’s numerical list, preferring to indicate the
materials which have lately accrued by some other notation
which he judges more convenient; such as lo” for the important
copy of the Acts he discovered and sold to the British Museum
(Addit. 20,003); 1%, 2°, &c. for the eleven which Edward de
Muralt collated at St Petersburg for his New Test. 1848;
and a”, b, &c. for those derived from “ A collation of about

twenty manuseripts of the Holy Gospels...by F. TH. Scrivener,
1853.”

1 The precise words of Scholz in speaking of ὅτι Matth. xviii. 28, for which it
ia believed that y”", an Evangelistarium unknown to Scholz, is the sole authority.
Tregelles indeed in his N, T. 1857 cites the margin of the Codex Leicestrensia
(69); but this, together with many other of ita marginal notes, waa inserted from
a printed book by Wm, Chark, who owned the manuscript in Queen Elizabeth's
reign,

APPENDIX TO SECTION I.

SYNAXARION AND ECLOGADION OF THE GOSPELS AND APOSTOLIC
WRITINGS DAILY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR,

[Gathered chiefly from Evangelist. Arund. 547, Parham 18, Harl. 5598, Burney 22,
and Christ’s Coll. Camb. }w

Ἔκ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωάννην [Arundel, 547] Κυριακῇ δ΄ or

Τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μεγάλῃ κυριακῇ τοῦ πάσχα. 5. Santa poe

Easter John vy. t-15. = ix. 32-42.

Easter-day John i, 1-17. Acts i. 1-8. and day of 4th
2nd day of Easter week vi. 56-69. x. 1-16.
week (τῆς διακινησίμου) 18-28. 12-26. 3rd vil. I-13. 21-33.
3rd Luke xxiv. 12-35. ii, 14-27. “ἢ 14-30. xiv, 6-18.
4th John i. 35-52. 38-43. 5th Vili. 12-20. X. 34-43.
5th iii, 1-15, iii. 1-8. 6th (παρασκευῇ) 21-30. 44-xi. IO.
6th (παρασκευῇ) ii, 12-22. ii, 22-36. 7th (σαββάτῳ) 31-42. xii, IIT,

7th (caBBdrw) iii. 22-33. 1. 11-16.
Κυριακῇ e’ or 4th Sunday

᾿Αντίπασχα or after Easter iv. 5-42. xi. 19-30.
ist Sunday after and day of 5th
Easter XX, 19-31. v. 12-20. week Vill, 42-51. xi. 12-17.
2nd day of 2nd 3rd 51-59. 25-xili, 12.
week ii, I-11. 1]. 19-26. 4th vi. 5-14. ΧΙ, 13-24.
3rd iii, 16-21. iv. I-10. 5th ix. 39-x.9. xiv. 20-27.
4th Υ. 17-24. 13-22. 6th (παρασκευῇ) x. 17-28. xv. 5-12.
5th 24-30. 23-31. “th (σαββάτῳ) 27-38. 35-41.
6th (παρασκευῇ) v. 30-vi. 2. v. 1-1.
7th (σαββάτῳ) Vi. 14-27. 21-32- Κυριακῇ ς΄ or sth Sunday
after Easter ix. 1-38. xvi. 16-34.
Κυριακῇ γ΄ or and and day of 6th
after Easter Mark xv. 43-xvi. 8. vi. 1-7. week xi. 47-54. Xvii. I-9.
and day of 3rd 3rd xii. 19-36. 19-27.
week John iv. 46-54. 8-vii. 60. 4th 36-47. xviii. 22-28,
3rd vi. 27-33. viii. 5-17. 5th ᾿Αναλήψεως, Ascension Day
4th 48-54. 18-25, Matins, Mark xvi. 9-20.
5th 40-44, 26-39. Liturgy, Luke xxiv. 36-73. i, 1-12.
6th (παρασκευῇ) 35-39. 40-ix. 19. 6th (παρασκευῇ) John xiv. 1-10. xix. 1-8,

7th (σαββάτῳ) xv. 17-xvi. 1. 19-31. 7th (σαββάτῳ) 10-21, xx. 7-12,

APPENDIX TO SECTION I. 69

Ἑυριακῇ ¢’ or 6th Sunday
after Easter τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ἐν Νικαίᾳ.

ΧΥΪΙ. I-13. 16-38.

and day of 7th
week Xiv. 27—Xxv. 7. xxi, 8-14.
ard ΧΥΪ. 2-13. 26-32.
4th 15-23. Xxill. I-11.
5th 23-33. XXV. 13-19.

6th (παρασκευῇ)
xvii. 18-26. xxvii. I—xxvili. I.

7th (σαββάτῳ) xxi. 14-25. xxviii. I-31.
Κυριακῇ τῆς πεντηκοστῆς
Whitsunday
Matins, XX. 19-23.

Liturgy, vii. 37—-viii. 12.2 ii, I-11,

Ἔκ τοῦ κατὰ Ματθαῖον.
and day of 1st week Τῇ ἐπαύριον τῆς πεν-
τηκοστῆς.
Matth. xviii. ro-20, Ephes, v. 8-10.

τὰ iv. 25-ν. II.
4th 20-30.
5th 31-41.

6th (παρασκευῇ)
7th (σαββάτῳ)

vii. 9-18.
v. 42-48. Rom. i, 7-12.

Κυριακῇ a’ τῶν *- 52.385} webr, xi. 33-
ἁγίων πάντων |, 37-38; xii, 2.
xix. 27-30.
and day of 2nd Vi. 31-343
week vii. 9-14.
3rd Vil. 15-21.
4th 21-23.
5th Vili. 23-27.
6th (παρασκευῇ) ix. 14-17.

7th (σαββάτῳ) vii. 1-8, Rom, 111, 19-26.

Κυριακῇ β΄ iv. 18-23. Rom, ii. 10-16,
2nd day of 3rd
week ix, 36-x. 8.

3rd Q-I5.

4th 16-22.

5th 23-31.

6th (παρασκευῇ) 32-36; xi. 1.

7th (σαββάτῳ)

Vii. 24—vill. 4. Rom. iii. 28-iv. 3.

Κυριακῇ Ὑ vi, 22-33. Rom. v. 1-10.
and day of 4th
week xi, 2-15.
3rd 16-20.
4th 20-26.
5th 27-30.
6th (παρασκευῇ) xii. 1-8.

7th (σαββάτῳ) viii. 14-23. Rom. vi. 11-17.

Κυριακῇ δ'
2nd day of 5th

viii, 5-13. Rom. vi. 18-23.

week xii. 9-13.
3rd 14-16; 22-30.
4th 38-45.
5th xii. 46-xiii. 3.
6th (παρασκευῇ) 3-12.

7th (σαββάτῳ) ix. 9-13. Rom. viii. r4—2T.

Κυριακῇ ε΄ νἱ]!. 28-ix. 1. Rom. x. I-10.

and day of 6th
week ΧΙ, 10-23,
3rd 24-30.
4th 31-36.
5th 36-43.
6th (παρασκευῇ) 44-54.

τ (σαββάτῳ)
Κυριακῇ ς΄
and day of 7th

ix. 18-26. Rom. ix. 1-5.

ix. 1-8. Rom. xii. 6-14.

week xili, 54-58.
3rd xiv. I-13.
4th xiv. 35—-Xv. II.
5th 12-21.
6th (παρασκευῇ) 29-31.

“th (σαββάτῳ) x. 37-xi. 1. Rom. xii. t-3.

Κυριακῇ ζ΄ xi. 27-35. Rom. xv. I-7.
and day of 8th
week xvi. 1-6.
3rd 6-12.
4th 20-24.
5th 24-28.

6th (παρασκευῇ) xvil. 10-18.

th (σαββάτῳ) xii. 30-37. Rom. xiii. 1-10.
Κυριακῇ η΄ xiv. 14-22. 1 Cor. i. 10-18.
2nd day of gth

week Xvill, I-IT.
grd = xviii, 18-20; xix. I-2; 13-I5.
4th xx. 1-16,
5th 17-28.

6th (παρασκευῇ) Xxi. 12-14; 17-20.
ath (σαββάτῳ) xv. 32-39. Rom. xiv. 6-9.

1 The pericope adultere Jo. vii. 53—Vviii. τὰ is omitted in all the copies we know on the feast of
Pentecost. Whenever read it was on some Saints’ Day (vid. infra, p. 74, notes 2, 3).

70 APPENDIX TO SECTION I.

Κυριαᾳκῇ 6’ xiv. 22-34. 1 Cor. iii. 9-17.
2nd day of roth
week xxi, 18-22.
3rd 23-27.
4th 28-32.
5th 43-46.

6th (παρασκευῇ) xxii. 23-33.
7th (σαββάτῳ)
xvii, 24—-xviii. 1. Rom. xv. 30-33.
Κυριακῇ ι΄ xvii. 14-23. 1 Cor. iv. 9-1ό.
2nd day of 11th

week xxiii. 13-22.
3rd 23-28.
4th 29-39.
5th xxiv. 13-28.

6th (παρασκευῇ) 27-35; 42-51.
7th (caBBdry) xix. 3-12. 1 Cor. i. 3-9.
Κυριακῇ wa’ = xviii, 22-35. 1 Cor, ix. 2-12.

Ἔκ τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον.
2nd day of 12th

week Mark i. 9-15.
3rd 16-22.
4th 23-28.
5th 29-35.

6th (παρασκευῇ) il. 18-22.
7th (σαββάτῳ)

Matth. xx. 29-34. 1 Cor. i. 26-29.
Κυριακῇ ιβ'
Matth. xix. 16-20. 1 Cor. xv. r—11.
and day of 13th

week Mark iii. 6-12.
3rd 13-21,
4th 20-27,
sth * 28-35.

6th (παρασκευῇ)
7th (σαββάτῳ)
Matth, xxii, 15-22. 1 Cor. ii. 6-9.

iv. 1-9.

"Apxh τῆς ἰνδικτοῦ τοῦ νέον sth
ἔτους, ἤγουν τοῦ εὐαγγελι-
στοῦ λουκᾶ [Arund, 547,

Parham, 18].

"Ex τοῦ κατὰ Λουκᾶν [Christ’s Κυριακῇ a’

Coll.). and day of 2nd
and day of 180 week
week Luke iii. 19-22. 3rd
3rd 23-iv. 1. 4th
4th 1-15. 5th

6th (παρασκευῇ)
7th (σαββάτῳ)

Κυριακῇ vy’
Matth. xxi, 33-42. 1 Cor. xvi. 13-24.

2nd day of 14th
week Mark iv. 10-23.
rd 24-34.
4th 35-41.
5th v. I-20.

6th (παρασκευῇ) Vv. 22-24; 35-Vi. I.

7th (σαββάτῳ)
Matth. xxiii. 1-12. 1 Cor. iv. 1-5.

Κυριακῇ ιδ'
Matth. xxii. 2-14. 2 Cor. i. τι-ἶ, 4.
2nd day of 15th

week Mark v. 24-34.
ard vi. 1-7.
4th 7-13.
5th 30-45.

6th (παρασκευῇ)
7th (σαββάτῳ)
Matth. xxiv. 1-13. 1 Cor. iv. 17-v. 5.

45-53

Κυριακῇ ce’
Matth. xxii. 35-41.
“πᾷ day of 16th
week Mark vi. 54-vii. 3.

2 Cor. iv. 6-11,

3rd 5-16.
4th 14-24.
5th 24-30.

6th (παρασκευῇ) ili. 1-10.
7th (σαββάτῳ)
Matth. xxiv. 34-373 42-44.
1 Cor. x. 23-28.
[Κυριακῇ ts’ (16th) Matth. xxv. 14-30.
σαββάτῳ cf’ (t7th) Matth. xxv. 1-13.
Κυριακῇ ef’ (17th) Matth, xv. 21-28.]

16-22. 6th (παρασκευῇ) 17-23.

22-30. 7th (σαββάτῳ) v. 17-26,

31-36. Κυριακῇ β' stan
and day of 3rd

Vv. 1- 11. week 24-30.

ard 37-45-

iv. 38-44. 4th vi. 46—-vii, 1.

v. 12-16. sth vii. 17-30.
33-39. Oth (παρασκευῇ) 31-35.
vi, 12-16. 7th (σαββάτῳ) Υ. 27-32.

Κυριακῇ γ' vii. 11-16,
2nd day of 4th
week 36-50.
3rd viii. 1-3.
4th 22--28.
5th ix, 7-II.
6th (παρασκευῇ) 12-18,
7th (σαββάτῳ) vi. I-10.
Κυριακῇ 5’ vill. 5-15.
2nd day of 5th
week ix, 18-22.
ard 23-27.
4th 43-50.
5th 49-56.
6th (παρασκευῇ) x. I-15.
7th (caBBdrw) vil. I-10.
Κυριακῇ ε΄ Xvi. 19-31.
2nd day of 6th
week X. 22-24,
3rd xi. I-Q.
4th 9-13.
5th 14-23.
6th (παρασκευῇ) 23-26.

7th (σαββάτῳ) viii, 16-21.

Κυριακῇ ς΄ viil.27-353 38-39.

2nd day of 7th
week xi. 29-33.
3rd 34-41.
4th 42-46.
5th 47-xil. I.
6th (παρασκευῇ) xii. 2-12.
7th (σαββάτῳ) ix. 1-6.

Κυριακῇ ζ΄
and day of 8th

week xii. 13-153 22-31.

3rd xii, 42-48.
4th 48-59.
5th ΧΗ, 1-9.
6th (παρασκευῇ) 31-35.
“7th (σαββάτῳγ ix. 37-48.

Vili. 41-56.

APPENDIX TO SECTION 1.

Κυριακῇ 7’
and day of oth

week xiv. 12-15.
3rd 25-35.
4th XV. I-I0.
5th Xvi. I-9.

6th (παρασκευῇ)

xvi. 15-18; xvii. 1-4.
ix. 57-62.

7th (σαββάτῳ)

Κυριακῇ 6’
2nd day of roth
week

4th xviii. 15-17; 26-30.
5th 31-34.
6th (παρασκευῇ)
xix. 12-28.
7th (σαββάτῳ) ΣΧ. 19-21.
Κυριακῇ ι' xiii. 10-17.
2nd day of r1th
week xix. 37-44.
3rd 45-48.
4th Ἔχ: 158:
5th 9-18.
6th (παρασκευῇ) 19-26,
7th (σαββάτῳ) xii. 32-40.
Κυριακῇ va’ xiv. 16-24,
2nd day of 12th
week XxX. 27-44,
3rd xxi, I2-19.
4th xxi. 5-8; 1O-11; 20-24.
5th xxl. 28-33.

6th (παρασκευῇ)

xxi. 37-xxii. 8.

7th (σαββάτῳ) xiil. 19-29.

Κυριακῇ ιβ'
and day of 13th

week Mark viii. 11-21.
3rd 22-26,
4th 30-34.

X. 25-37.

xu, 16-21.

XVil. 20-25.
3rd xvii. 26-37; xviii. 18.

ΧΥΪΙ, 12-19.

ix. 10-16.
33-41.

5th

6th (παρασκευῇ)

7th (σαββάτῳ)
Luke xiv. I-11,

Κυριακῇ vy’
2nd day of ταν

xviil. 18-27.

week Mark ix. 42-x. 1.
ard X. 2-II.
4th 11-16.
5th 17-27.
6th (παρασκευῇ) 24-32.

7th (σαββάτῳ)
Luke xvi, 10-15.

Κυριακῇ 16’ XVill. 35-43.
[2nd day of 15th

week Mark x. 46-52.
3rd xi, 11-23.
4th 22-26,
5th 27--33-

6th (παρασκευῇ) xii. 1--12.
7th (σαββάτῳ)

Luke xvii, 3-10.

Κυριακῇ ιε΄ xix. 1-10,
and day of 16th

week Mark xii. 13-17.
3rd 18-27,
4th 28-34.
5th 38-44.
6th (παρασκευῇ) xiii. 1-9.
7th (σαββάτῳ)

Luke xviii. 1-8.

Κυριακῇ us’ (of the Publican)

9-14.]
and day of 17th

week Mark xiii. 9-13.
3rd 14-23.
4th 24-31.
5th xiii. 3I—-Xiv. 2.
6th (παρασκευῇ) xiv. 3-9.
7th (σαββάτῳ)

Luke xx. 46-xxi. 4.

Κυριακῇ cf’ (of the Canaanitess) Matth. xv.
21-28.

σαββάτῳ mpd τῆς ἀποκρέω, Luke xv. I-10.

Κυριακῇ πρὸ τῆς ἀποκρέω (of the Prodigal)
Luke xv. 11-32. 1 Thess. v. 14-23.

2nd day of the week of the

carnival Mark xi. I-11.
3rd xiv, 10-42.
4th 43-XV. I.
sth Xv. I-I5.

6th (παρασκευῇ) Xv. 20; 22; 25; 33-4I.
7th (caBBdrw) Luke xxi. 8-9; 25-27;
33-36; 1 Cor. vi. 12-20.

Κυριακῇ τῆς ἀποκρέω Matth. xxv. 31-46.
1 Cor. viii. 8-ix. 2.
and day of the week of the cheese-eater

Luke xix. 29-40; xxii. 7-8; 39.

3rd xxii. 39—xxiil. I.
4th deest.
sth xxiii. I-43; 44-56.
6th (παρασκευῇ) deest,

7th (σαββάτῳ) Matth. vi. 1-13. Rom. xiv,
19-23; XVi. 25-27.
Κυριακῇ τῆς τυροφάγου Matth. vi. 14-21.
Rom. xiii. 11—xiv. 4.

Παννυχὶς τῆς ἁγίας νηστείας.
Vigil of Lent (Parh. Christ’s.) Matth. vii.

7-11.
τῶν νηστειῶν (Lent).

σαββάτῳ a’

Mark. ii. 23-iii. 5. Hebr. i. 1-12.
Κυριακῇ a Johni. 44-55. xi, 24-40.
σαββάτῳ B’ Mark i. 35-44. 111, 12-14.
Κυριακῇ β΄ ii, 1-12. i. το-ἰϊ, 3.
σαββάτῳ γ' 14-17. X. 32-37.
Κυριακῇ γ΄ viii. 34-ix. 1. iv. 14-v. 6.
σαββάτῳ δ΄ vii. 31-37. vi. 9-12.
Κυριακῇ δ΄ ix. 17-31. 13-20.
σαββάτῳ e’ viii. 27-31. ix, 24-28.
Κυριακῇ ε΄ X. 32-45. 11-14.

σαββάτῳ s’ (of Lazarus,)
John xi. 1-45. xii, 28-xiii. 8.
Κυριακῇ ς΄ τῶν Batwy, Matth. xxi, 1-11;
15-17; [els τὴν λιτήν, Mark x. 46—xi. 11,
Burney, 22]. Liturgy, John xii, 1-18,
Phil. iv. 4-9.
Τῇ ἁγίᾳ μεγάλῃ (Holy Week).
{ Matins, Matth. xxi, 18-43.

aad Hay ( Liturgy, XXiv. 3-35.

APPENDIX TO SECTION I.

we 4 Matins, xxii. 15—Xxiv. 2.
( Liturgy, xxiv. 36-xxvi. 2.
th Matins, John xii. 17-47.
Ὁ Liturgy, Matth. xxvi. 6-16.
“th Matins, Luke xxii. 1-36.

Liturgy, Matth. xxvi. 1-20.

Εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ νιπτῆρος, John xiii. 3-10.
μετὰ τὸ νίψασθαι 12-17;
Matth. xxvi. 21-39; Luke xxii. 43, 44;

Matth. xxvi. 4o-xxvii. 2. 1 Cor. xi. 23-32,

Εὐαγγέλια τῶν ἁγίων πάθων w xu (Twelve
Gospels of the Passions).

(1) Jo, xiii. 31—-xviii. 1. (2) Jo. xviii. 1-28.
(3) Matth. xxvi. 57-75. (4) Jo. xviii.
28-xix. 16. (5) Matth. xxvii. 3-32. (6)
Mark xv. 16-32. (7) Matth. xxvii. 33-
54. (8) Luke xxiii. 32-49. (9) Jo. xix.
25-37. (10) Mark xv. 43-47. (11) Jo.
xix. 38-42. (12) Matth. xxvii. 62-66.

Εὐαγγέλια τῶν ὡρῶν τῆς ἁγίας παραμονῆς.
(Night-watches of Vigil of Good Friday).
Hour (1) Matth. xxvii. 1-56. (3) Mark
xv. 1-41. (6) Luke xxii. 66-xxiii. 49.

(9) John xix. 16-37.

Τῇ ἁγίᾳ παραμονῇ (Good Friday) els τὴν
λειτουργίαν.

Matth. xxvii. 1-38; Luke xxiii. 39-43;
Matth. xxvii. 39-54; John xix. 31-37;
Matth. xxvii. 55-61. 1 Cor. i. 18-ii. 2.
Τῷ ἁγίῳ καὶ μεγάλῳ σαββάτῳ (Easter

Even).
Matins, Matth. xxvii. 62-66.
1 Cor. v. 6-8.
Evensong, Matth. xxviii. 1-20.
Rom. vi. 3-11.

Εὐαγγέλια ἀναστασιμὰ ἑωθινά (vid. Suicer
Thes. Eccl. 1. 1229), eleven Gospels, used
in turn, one every Sunday at Matins,

(1) Matth. xxviii. 16-20, (2) Mark xvi. 1

-8. (3) ib. 9-20. (4) Luke xxiv, 1-12.
(5) id. 12-35. (6) ib. 36-52. (7) John
xx, 1-10, (8) ἐδ. 11-18. (9) ἐδ. 19-31.

(10) Jo. xxit-14, (11) i, 15-25.

APPENDIX TO SECTION I. 73

We have now traced the daily service of the Greek Church, as derived from the Gospels,
throughout the whole year, from Easter Day to Easter Even, only that in Lent the les-
sons from the 2nd to the 6th days inclusive are taken from the book of Genesis (above,
p. 64). The reader will observe that from Easter to Pentecost St John and the Acts are
read for seven weeks, or eight Sundays. The first Sunday after Pentecost is the Greek
All Saints’ Day; but from the Monday next after the day of Pentecost (Whit-Monday)
St Matthew is used continuously every day for eleven weeks and as many Sundays. For
six weeks more, St Matthew is appointed for the Saturday and Sunday lessons, St Mark
for the other days of the week. But inasmuch as St Luke was to be taken up with the new
year, the year of the indiction [Arund. 547], which in this case must be September 24}, if all
the lessons in Matthew and Mark were not read out by this time (which, unless Haster
was very early, would not be the case), they were at once broken off, and (after proper les-
sons were employed for the Sunday before and the Saturday and Sunday which followed the
feast of the elevation of the Cross, Sept. 14) the lessons from St Luke (seventeen weeks
and sixteen Sundays in all) were taken up and read on as far as was necessary: only that
the 17th Sunday of St Matthew (called from the subject of its Gospel the Canaanitess)
was always resumed for the Sunday before the Carnival (πρὸ τῆς ἀποκρέω), which is also
named from its Gospel that of the Prodigal, and answers to the Latin Sepiwagesima.
Then follow the Sunday of the Carnival (ἀποκρέω) or Sexagesima, that of the Cheese-eater
(rupopdyov) or Quinquagesima, and the six Sundays in Lent. The whole number of Sun-
day Gospels in the year (even reckoning the two interpolated about Sept. 14) is thus only
fifty-two: but in the Menology or Catalogue of immoveable feasts will be found proper
lessons for three Saturdays and Sundays about Christmas and Epiphany, which could
either be substituted for, or added to the ordinary Gospels for the year, according as the
distance from Easter of one year to Easter in the next exceeded or fell short of fifty-two
weeks. The system of lessons from the Acts and Epistles is much simpler than that of
the Gospels: it exhibits fifty-two Sundays in the year, without any of the complicated
arrangements of the other scheme. Since the Epistles from the Saturday of the 16th
week after Pentecost to the Sunday of the Prodigal cannot be set (like the rest) by the
side of their corresponding Gospels, they are given separately in the following table:

2 Cor. xi. 1-6.
Eph. ii. 14-22.
Gal. i. 3-10.
Eph. iv. 1-7.
Gal. iii. 8-12.
Epb. v. 8-19.
Gal. v. 22—vi. 2.
Eph. vi. 10-17.
Col. 1. 9-18.

2 Cor. ii. 14— iii, 3.
Eph. ii. 11-13.

2 Cor vi. I-10.

1 Cor. xiv. 20-25.

2 Cor. vi. 16—viii, I.
1 Cor. xv. 39-45.

2 Cor. ix. 6-11.

1 Cor. xv. 58—xvi. 3.
2 Cor. xi. 31—xii. 9.
2 Cor. i. 8-11.

Gal. i. 11-19.

2 Cor. iii. 12-18,
Gal. ii. 16-20.

2 Cor. v. I-10.

Κυριακῇ is’
σαββάτῳ ιζ'
Κυριακῇ of’
σαββάτῳ wn’
Κυριακῇ ιη
σαββάτῳ ιθ’
ΙΚυριακῇ 10”
σαββάτῳ κ’
Κυριακῇ Kk’
σαββάτῳ κα’
Κυριακῇ κα'

σαββάτῳ KB’

σαββάτῳ Kd
Κυριακῇ κδ΄
σαββάτῳ κε’
Κυριακῇ Ke’
σαββάτῳ ks’
Κυριακῇ ks’
σαββάτῳ κζ᾽
Κυριακῇ κζ'
σαββάτῳ Kn’
Κυριακῇ κη΄
σαββάτῳ κθ’

Κυριακῇ x6’

Col. ili. 4-11.

Κυριακῇ KB’ Gal. vi. 11-18, σαββάτῳ λ' Eph. v. 1-8.
σαββάτῳ xy’ 2 Cor, vili. 1-5. Κυριακῇ λ΄ Col. iii. 12-16,
Κυριακῇ Ky’ Eph. ii. 4-10. σαββάτῳ ra’ Col. i. 2-6.

1 The more usual indiction, which dates from Sept. 1, is manifestly excluded by the following rubric
(Burney, 22, p. 191, and in other copies): Δέον γινώσκειν ὅτι ἄρχεται 6 Λουκᾶς ἀναγινώσκεσθαι ἀπὸ τῆς
Κυριακῆς μετὰ τὴν ὕψωσιν᾽ τότε yap Kai ἡ ἰσυμερΐα [1.6. ἰσημερία] γίνεται, ὃ καλεῖται νέον ἔτος. Ἢ ὅτι
ἀπὸ τὰς [τῆς] κγ΄ τοῦ σεπτεμβρίον ὁ Λουκᾶς ἀναγινώσκεται,

74 APPENDIX TO SECTION I.

Κυριακῇ Xa’ = 4 Tim. i. 3-9.
σαββάτῳ AB’ Col. ii. 8-12.
Κυριακῇ λβ΄ 1 Tim. vi. 11-16.
σαββάτῳ dy’ 1 Tim. ii. 1-7.
Κυριακῇ λγ΄ 88 Kup. λα΄.

σαββάτῳ λδ'
Κυριακῇ λδ΄
σαββάτῳ de’
Κυριακῇ λε΄
σαββάτῳ dvs"

1 Tim. iii, 13--οῖν. 5.
2 Tim. iii. 10-15.

1 Tim. iii, 1-11.

2 Tim. ii. 1-10.

2 Tim. ii. 11-19.

ON THE MENOLOGY, OR CALENDAR OF IMMOVEABLE FESTIVALS
AND SAINTS’ DAYS.

We cannot in this place enter very fully into this portion of the contents of Lection-
aries, inasmuch as, for reasons we have assigned above (p. 65), the investigation would

be both tedious and difficult.

All the great feast-days, however, as well as the com-

memorations of the Apostles and of a few other Saints, occur alike in all the books, and

ought not to be omitted here.

We commence with the month of September (the opening

of the year at Constantinople), as do all the Lectionaries and Synaxaria we have seen},

Sept. 1, Simeon Stylites, Luke iv. 16-22;
Col. iii. 12-16.
8. Birthday of the Virgin, Θεοτόκος, Luke
x. 38-42; xi. 27, 28; Phil. ii. 5-1|.
13. Κυριακῇ πρὸ τῆς ὑψώσεως, Jo. 111. 13-
17; Gal, vi. 11-18.
14. Elevation of the Cross, Jo. xix. 6-353
1 Cor. i. 18-24.
Jo. viii, 21-30;

1 Cor. i. 26-29.
Mark viii. 34-ix. 1;
Gal. ii, 16-20,
18. Theodora®, John viii. 3-11 (Parham).
24. Thecla, Matth. xxv. 1-13; 2 Tim. i.

3-9-
Oct. 3. Dionysius the Areopagite, Matth.
xiii. 45-54; Act. xvii. 16-34.
6. Thomas the Apostle, Jo. xx. 19-31;
1 Cor. iv. 9-16.
8. Pelagia, John. viii. 3-11.3
9. James son of Alphaeus, Matth. x, 1-
75 43 15.
18, Luke the Evangelist, Luke x. 16-21;
Col. iv. 5-19.
23. James, ὁ ἀδελφόθεος, Mark vi. 1-7.
Nov. 8. Michael and Archangels, Luke x.
16-21; Hebr. ii. 2-10,

σαββάτῳ | μετὰ
τὴν

Κυριακῇ ὕψωσιν

1 In the Menology, even Arund. 547 has μηνὶ σεπτεμβρίῳ a ἀρχὴ τῆς ἰνδίκτου.

13. Chrysostom, JO. x. 9-16; Hebr. vii.
26-viii. 2.

14. Philip the Apostle, Jo. i. 44-55; Act.
viii. 26-39.

16. Matthew the Apostle, Matth. ix. 9-13;
1 Cor. iv. 9-16.

25. Clement of Rome, Jo. xv. 17-xvi. 1;
Phil. iii. 20-iv. 3.

30. Andrew the Apostle, John i, 35-52;
1 Cor. iv. 9-16.

Dec. 20. Ignatius, ὁ θεόφορος, Mark ix. 33
—41; Hebr. iv. 14-v. 6.
Saturday before Christmas, Matth. xiii.
31-58; Gal. iii. 8-12.
Sunday before Christmas, Matth. i. 1-
25; Hebr. xi. 9-16.
24. Christmas Eve, Luke ii. 1-20; Hebr.
i, I-12,
25. Christmas Day, Matth. ii. 1-12; Gal.
iv. 4-7.
26. Stephen, Matth. ii. 13-23; Hebr. ii.
11-18,
Saturday after Christmas, Matth. xii. 15
—21; 1 Tim. vi. 11-16,
Sunday after Christmas, Mark i, 1-8;
Gal. i, 11-19.

So Burn. 22 nearly.

3 Theodosia in Codex Cyprius, with the cognate lesson, Luke vii. 3(—5o.
* So Cod. Cyprius, but the Christ's Coll. Evst. removes Pelagia to Aug. 31, and reads Jo, viii, 1—rr,

APPENDIX TO SECTION I. 75

Saturday πρὸ τῶν φώτων, Matth. iii. 1-6;
1 Tim, iii, 13-iv. 5.

Sunday πρὸ τῶν φώτων, Mark i. 1-8;
1 Tim. 111, 13-iv. 5.

Jan, 1. Circumcision, Luke ii. 20; 21; 40

—52; 1 Cor. xiii. 12—xiv. 5.

5. Vigil of θεοφανία, Luke iii. 1-18;
I Cor. ix. 19-x. 4.

Matins, Mark) ᾿
6. Θεοφανία 1 i. 9-11. Titus i.
(Epiphany) | Liturgy, Matt.( 11-14-

ili, 13-17.
7. John, ὁ πρόδρομος, John 1. 29-34.
Saturday μετὰ τὰ φῶτα, Matth. iv. 1-
11; Eph. vi. 10-17.
Sunday μετὰ τὰ φῶτα, Matth. iv, 12-
17; Eph. iv. 7-13.
22. Timothy, Matth. x. 32; 333 37; 38;
xix. 27-30; 2 Tim. i. 3-9.
Feb. 2. Presentation of Christ, Luke ii. 22
—40; Hebr. vii. 7-17.
3. Simeon ὁ Θεοδόχος, and Anna, Luke
ii, 25-38; Hebr. ix. 11-14.
23. Polycarp, John xii. 24-36.
Matins, Luke vii. 18
—29.
Een es οτος me ae Matth. xi. 5
the Baptist -14; 2 Cor. iv.6-11.
March 25. Annunciation, Luke i. 24-38;
Hebr. ii. 11-18.

24, Finding of the

April 25.
7-13.
30. James son of Zebedee, Matth. x. 1-7;
145 Τὴν
May 2. Athanasius,
Hebr. iv. 14-v. 6.
8. John, ὁ Θεόλογος, Jo. xix. 25-27; xxi.
24, 25; 1 Jo. i. I-7. '
26. Jude the Apostle, Jo. xiv. 21-24.
June 11. Bartholomew and Barnabas the
Apostles, Mark vi.7-13; Acts xi.19-30.
19. Jude, brother of the Lord, Mark vi.
7-13 or εὐαγγέλιον ἀποστολικόν (Matth.
x. 1-8 ὃ).
24. Birth of John the Baptist, Luke i.
I-25; 57-80; Rom. xiii. 11-xiv. 4.
29. Peter and Paul the Apostles, Matth.
Xvi. 13-19; 2 Cor. x. 21-xii. 9.

30. The Twelve Apostles, Matth. x. 1-8.
July 22. Mary Magdalene, ἡ μυροφόρος,
Mark xvi. 9-20; 2 Tim. ii. 1-10.
Matins, Luke ix, 29-36

or Mark ix. 2-9.
Liturgy, Matth. xvii. 1-
9; τ Pet. 1. 10-19.
20 or 25. Thaddaeus the Apostle, Matth,
x. 16-22; 1 Cor. iv. 9-16.
29. Beheading of John the Baptist, Mark
vi. 14-30; Acts xiii, 25-32.

Mark the Evangelist, Mark vi.

Matth. v. 14-19;

Aug. 6. Transfi-
guration

Section II.
Description of the Uncial Manuscripts of the Greek Testament.

WE proceed to describe in detail the uncial manuscripts of
the Greek Testament, arranged separately as copies of the
Gospels, of the Acts and Catholic Epistles, of the Pauline
Epistles and of the Apocalypse. Including the yet unpublished
Codex Sinaiticus (above, p. 27) we have already stated the
number extant in each portion of the sacred volume (above,
p- 66). They are usually indicated by the capital letters of
the English and Greek alphabets, and stand on the list not in
the order of their relative value or antiquity (as could have
been wished), but mainly as they were applied from time to
time to the purposes of Textual criticisms.

Manuscripts of the Gospels.

ἐς (Aleph). Copex SINArticus, now at St Petersburg,
the justly celebrated copy which has recently attracted such
general attention in the learned world. From Tischendorf’s
Notitia Ed. Cod. Sinaitici (pp. 5, 6) we gain some insight into
the history of its discovery. When travelling in 1844 under
the patronage of his own sovereign, the King Frederick
Augustus of Saxony, he picked out of a basket full of papers
destined to light the oven of the Convent of St Catharine on
Mount Sinai, the 43 leaves of the Septuagint which he pub-
lished in 1846 as the Codex Frederico-Augustanus. ‘These, of
course, he easily got for the asking, but finding that further
portions of the same codex (e.g. the whole of Isaiah and 1,
4 Maccabees) were extant, he rescued them from their pro-
bable fate, by enlightening the brotherhood ag to their value.
He was permitted to copy one leaf of what yet remained, and
departed in the full hope that he should be allowed to purchase
the whole; but he had taught the monks a sharp lesson, and
neither then, nor on his subsequent visit in 1853, could he gain
any tidings of the leaves he had left behind; he even seems to

UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 17

have concluded that they had been carried into Europe by some
richer or more fortunate collector. At the beginning of 1859,
after the care of the seventh edition of his N. T. was happily
over, he went for a third time into the East, under the well-
deserved patronage of the Emperor of Russia, the great pro-
tector of the Oriental Church ; and the treasure which had been
twice withdrawn from him as a private traveller, was now (on
the occasion of some chance conversation) freely put into the
hands of one sent from the champion and benefactor of the
oppressed Church. Tischendorf touchingly describes his sur-
prise, his joy, his midnight studies over the priceless volume
(“ quippe dormire nefas videbatur’’) on that memorable 4th of
February, 1859. The rest was easy; he was allowed to copy
his prize at Cairo, and ultimately to bring it to Europe, as a tri-
bute of duty and gratitude to the Emperor Alexander II. To
that monarch’s wise munificence the forthcoming editions (both
the larger and the more popular one) will be mainly due.

The Codex Sinaiticus, as we learn from Tischendort’s Notitva,
consists of 3454 leaves of the same beautiful vellum as the Cod.
Frid-Augustanus (see p. 20), of which 199 contain portions of
the Septuagint version, 147} the whole New Testament, Barna-
bas’ Epistle, and portions of Hermas’ Shepherd. Each page
comprises four columns (see p. 25), with 48 lines in each column,
of those continuous, noble, simple uncials (compare Plate IV. 11 a
with 11 b) we have described so minutely in the preceding section
(pp. 29—35). The poetical books of the Old Testament, how-
ever, being written in στίχοι, admit of only two columns on a
page (above, p. 45). Since the Notitéa contains an exact reprint
in common Greek type of 18 pages of the codex (nine being
taken from the N. T.) as it came from the first hand, we can
now form a clear and distinct notion of what we may expect in
1862, only that our knowledge of the actual readings of the
manuscript is, of course, still very incomplete. The order of the
sacred books is remarkable, though not unprecedented (p. 62).
St Paul’s Epistles precede the Acts, and among them, that to
the Hebrews follows 2 Thess., standing on the same page with
it. Breathings and accents there are none: the apostrophus
(see p. 43), and the single point for punctuation, are entirely
absent for pages together, yet occasionally are rather thickly
studded, not only in places where a later hand has been unusu-

78 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

ally busy (e. g. Isaiahi. 1—iii. 2, two pages), but in some others
(e.g. in 2 Cor. xii. 20 there are eight stops). Even the words very

usually abridged (except Oc, xo, wo, xo, mva which are constant)
are here written in full, as πατήρ, Saved: the practice varies
for vios, oupavos, avOpwros: we find icpann’, wor OF Mr:
ἱερουσαλημ᾽, inf, Ap, rp’, OF vay. Tischendorf considers the
two points over dota and upsilon (which are sometimes want-
ing) as seldom from the first hand: the mark > (see p. 44) we
note oftener in the Old Testament than in the New. Words
are divided at the end of a line as capriciously as can be ima-
gined: thus K in OTK is repeatedly separated without need.
Small letters, of the most perfect shape (see p. 44), freely occur
in all places, especially at the end of lines, where the — super-
script almost always represents N (e.g. 17 times in Mark i.1—35).
The only other compendia scribendi seem to be K, for και, and
HN written as in Plate I. No.3. Numerals are represented by
letters, with a straight line placed over them (e. g. @ Mark.i.13).
Although there are no capitals, the initial letter of a line which
begins a sentence generally stands out from the rank of the rest,
which is a step nearer them than we find in Cod. B (see p. 44).
The titles and subscriptions of the several books are as short as
possible (see p. 54). Of the τίτλοι or κεφάλαια majora Tischen-
dorf does not speak ; the margin contains the Ammonian sections
and Eusebian canons, but he is positive that neither they nor the
note στίχων pi (see p. 45, note 2) appended to 2 Thessalonians,
are by the original scribe. Correctors of all ages have dis-
figured the manuscript, some (as he judges) as early as the sixth
or seventh century; but for all these points we are necessarily
referred to the Prolegomena and detailed Annotations in the
fourth volume of his forthcoming edition,

From the transcript of the nine pages of the New Testa-
ment (Matth. xxvii. 64—xxviii. 20; Mark 1. 1—35; Jo. XXi.
1—25; 2 Cor. xi. 32—xiii. 5; xiii, 5—Gal. i. 17; 2 Thess. 11.
17—Hebr. i. 7; Acts xxviii. 17—31; James i. 1—ii. 6; Apoc.
ix. 5—x. 8; xxii. 19—21); from the lithographed facsimile
of three-fourths of the page containing Luke xxiv. 24—53 ; and
less safely from a loose sylva lectionum set down almost at
random in the Notitia, pp. 14—21, we may form some estimate
of the character of Cod. &. From the number of ὁμοιοτέλευτα

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 79

(p. 9) and other errors, one cannot affirm that it is very care-
fully written. Its itacisms (see p. 10) are of the oldest type,
and those not constant; chiefly « for εἰ, ἡ v and ov interchanged.
The grammatical forms commonly termed Alexandrian occur,
but rather as the exception than the rule. With regard to the
more important question as to the class of readings it supports,
it cannot be said to give in its exclusive adherence to any of the
witnesses hitherto examined. It so lends its grave authority,
now to one and now to another, as to convince us more than
ever of the futility of seeking to derive the genuine text of the
New Testament from any one copy, however ancient and, on the
whole, trustworthy. On this whole subject see Chapter vir.

A. Copex ALEXANDRINUS in the British Museum, where
the open volume of the New Testament is publicly shown in the
Manuscript room. It was placed in that Library on its forma-
tion in 1753, having previously belonged to the king’s private
collection, from the year 1628, when Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of
Constantinople (whose crude attempts to reform the Eastern
Church on the model of Geneva provoked the untoward Synod
of Bethlehem in 1672), sent this most precious document by our
Embassador in Turkey, Sir Thomas Roe, as a truly royal gift to
Charles I. An Arabic inscription, several centuries old, at the
back of the Table of Contents on the first leaf of the manuscript,
states that it was written by the hand of Thecla the Martyr,
and given to the Patriarchal Chamber in the year of the
Martyrs, 814 [4.p. 1098]. Another, and apparently an earlier
inscription, in Moorish-Arabic, declares that the book was
dedicated to the Patriarchal Chamber at Alexandria. That it
was brought from Alexandria by Cyril (who had previously
been Patriarch of that see) need not be disputed, though Wet-
stein, on the doubtful authority of Matthew Muttis of Cyprus,
Cyril’s deacon, concludes that he procured it from Mount Athos.
In the volume itself the Patriarch has written and subscribed
the following words: ‘Liber iste scripturae sacrae N. et V. Test.,
prout ex traditione habemus, est scriptus manu Theclae, nobilis
foeminae Aigyptiae, ante mille et trecentos annos circiter, paulo
post Concilium Nicaenum. Nomen Theclae in fine libri erat ex-
aratum, sed extincto Christianismo in Augypto a Mahometanis,

et libri una Christianorum in similem sunt redacti conditionem.
Σ

50 OF THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

Extinctum ergo et Theclae nomen et laceratum, sed memoria et
traditio recens observat.’’ Cyril seems to lean wholly on the
Arabic inscription on the first leaf of the volume: independent
testimony he would appear to have received none.

This celebrated manuscript, the earliest of first-rate import-
ance applied by scholars to the criticism of the text, and yielding
in value to but one or two at the utmost, is now bound in
four volumes, whereof three contain the Septuagint version of the
Old Testament almost complete, the fourth volume the New Tes-
tament with several lamentable defects. St Matthew’s Gospel is
wanting up to ch. xxv. 6 ἐξέρχεσθε, from John vi. 50 ἵνα to viii. 52
λέγει! two leaves are lost, and three leaves from 2 Cor. iv. 13
ἐπίστευσα to xii. G ἐξ ἐμοῦ. All the other books of the New
Testament are here entire, the Catholic Epistles following the
Acts, that to the Hebrews standing before the Pastoral Epistles
(see above, p. 62). After the Apocalypse we find the ondy ex-
tant copy of the first or genuine Epistle of Clement of Rome, and
a small fragment of a second of suspected authenticity, both in
the same hand as the latter part of the New Testament. It
would appear also that these two Epistles were designed to form
a part of the volume of Scripture, for in the table of contents
exhibited on the first leaf of the manuscript under the head
ΗΠ KAINH ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ͂, they are represented as immediately fol-
lowing the Apocalypse: then is given the number of books,
OMOY BIBAIA, the numerals being now illegible; and after
this, as if distinct from Scripture, the [18] Psalms of Solomon.
Such uncanonical works (ἰδιωτικοὶ ψαλμοὶ... ἀκανόνιστα βιβλία)
were forbidden to be read in churches by the 59th canon of the
Council of Laodicea (A.D. 866?); whose 60th canon enumerates
the books of the N.'T., in the precise order seen in Cod. A, only —
that the Apocalypse and Clement’s Epistles do not stand on the
list.

This manuscript is in quarto, about thirteen inches high
and ten broad, each page being divided into two columns of
fifty lines each, having about twenty letters or upwards in

1 Yet we may be sure that these two leaves did not contain the Pericope
Adulterae, Jo. vii. 53—viii. 11. Taking the Elzevir N. T. of 1624, which is
printed without breaks for the verses, we count 286 lines of the Elzevir for the
two leaves of Cod. A preceding its defect, 288 lines for the two pages which follow

it; but 317 lines for the two missing leaves. Deduct the 30 lines containing
Jo, vii. 53—viii. 11, and the result for the lost leaves is 287,

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 81

aline. These letters are continuously written in uncial charac-
ters, without any space between the words, the uncials being
of an elegant yet simple form, in a firm and uniform hand,
though in some places larger than in others. Specimens of both
styles may be seen in our facsimiles (Nos. 12, 13)’, the first,
Gen. i. 1, 2, being written in vermillion, the second, Acts xx.
28, in the once black, but now yellowish brown ink of the
‘body of the Codex. ‘The punctuation merely consists of a point
placed at the end of a sentence, usually on a level with the
top of the preceding letter, but not always; and a vacant space
follows the point at the end of a paragraph, the space being
proportioned to the break in the sense. Capital letters of
various sizes abound at the beginning of books and sections,
not painted as in later copies, but written by the original scribe
in common ink. As these capitals stand entirely outside the
column in the margin (excepting in such rare cases as Gen. i. 1),
if the section begins in the middle of a line, the capital is
necessarily postponed till the beginning of the next line, whose
first letter is always the capital, even though it be in the
middle of a word. Vermillion is freely used in the initial
lines of books, and has stood the test of time much better than
the black ink: the first four lines of each column on the first
page of Genesis are in this colour, accompanied with the only
breathings and accents in the manuscript (see above, p. 39).
The first line of St Mark, the first three of St Luke, the first
verse of St John, the opening of the Acts down to δὲ, and so
on for other books, are in vermillion. At the end of each book
are neat and unique ornaments in the ink of the first hand: see
especially those at the end of St Mark and the Acts. As we
have before stated (pp. 49, 51) this codex is the earliest which has
the κεφάλαια proper, the Ammonian sections, and the Eusebian
canons complete. Lists of the κεφάλαια precede each Gospel,
except the first, where they are lost. Their titles stand or have
stood at the top of the pages, but the binder has often ruth-
lessly cut them short, and committed other yet more serious
mutilation at the edges. The places at which they begin are

1 Other facsimiles are given in Woide’s edition of the New Testament from this
MS. (1786), and in Baber’s of the Old Test. (1816). Two specimens of the style
of the first Epistle of Clement are exhibited in Canon Jacobson’s Patres Apostolici,
Vol. 1. p. rro (1838),

82 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

indicated throughout, and their numbers are moreover placed
in the margin of Luke and John. The Eusebian sections and
canons are conspicuous in the margin, and at the beginning
of each of these sections a capital letter occurs. The rest of
the New Testament has no division into κεφάλαια, as was usual
in later times, but paragraphs and capitals as the sense requires.

The paleographic reasons for referring this manuscript to
the beginning or middle of the fifth century (the date now very
generally acquiesced in) depend in part on the general style of
the writing, which is at once firm, elegant and simple; partly
on the formation of certain letters, in which respect it holds
a middle place between copies of the fourth and sixth centuries.
The reader will recall what we have already said (pp. 29—35) as
to the shape of alpha, delta, epsilon, pi, sigma, phi and omega in
the Codex Alexandrinus. Woide, who edited the New Testa-
ment, believes that two hands were employed in that volume,
changing in the page containing 1 Cor. v—vii., the vellum of
the latter portion being thinner and the ink more thick, which
has accordingly peeled off or eaten through the vellum in many
places. This, however, is a point on which those who know
manuscripts best will most hesitate to speak decidedly’.

The external arguments for fixing the date are less weighty,
but all point to the same conclusion. On the evidence for its
being written by St Thecla, indeed, no one has cared to lay
much stress, though some have thought that the scribe might
belong to some monastery dedicated to that holy martyr.
Tregelles, however, explains the origin of the Arabic inscription,
on which Cyril’s statement appears to rest, by remarking that
the New Testament in our manuscript at presen’ commences
with Matth. xxv, 6, this lesson (Matth. xxv. 1—13) being that
appointed by the Greek Church for the festival of St Thecla (see
above, Menology, p. 74, Sept. 24). The Egyptian, therefore,
who wrote this Arabic note, observing the name of Thecla in
the now mutilated upper margin of the Codex, where such
rubrical notes are commonly placed by later hands, hastily con-
cluded that she wrote the book, and thus has perplexed our

1 Notice especially what Tregelles says of the Codex Augiensis (Tregelles’
Horne Introd. p. 198), where the difference of hand in the leaves removed from
their proper place is much more striking than any change in Cod, Alex, Yet
even in that case it is likely that one scribe only was engaged.

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 83

Biblical critics. It is hardly too much to say that Tregelles’
shrewd conjecture seems to be certain, almost to demonstration.

Other more trustworthy reasons for assigning Cod. A to the
fifth century may be summed up very briefly. The presence
of the canons of Eusebius [A. Ὁ. 268—340?], and of the epistle
to Marcellinus by the great Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria
[8002—373], before the Psalms, place a limit in one direction,
while the absence of the Euthalian divisions of the Acts and
Epistles (see above, p. 53), which came into vogue very soon
after 458, and the shortness of the ὑπογραφαὶ (above, p. 54)
appear tolerably decisive against a later date than A.D. 450.
The insertion of the Epistles of Clement, like those of Bar-
nabas and Hermas in the Cod. Sinaiticus, recalls us to a period
when the canon of Scripture was in some particulars a little
unsettled, or about the age of the Council of Laodicea 366.
Other arguments have been urged both for an earlier and a later
date, but they scarcely deserve discussion. Wetstein’s objection
to the title Θεοτόκος as applied to the Blessed Virgin in the
title to her song, added to the Psalms, is quite groundless: that
appellation was given to her by both the Gregories in the middle
of the fourth century (vid. Suicer. Thesaur. Eccles. 1. p. 1387), as
habitually as it was a century after: nor should we insist much
on the contrary on Woide’s or Schulz’s persuasion that the
τρισάγιον (aylos 6 θεός, ὥγιος ἰσχυρός, ὥγιος ἀθάνατος) would
have been found in the ὕμνος ἐωθινὸς after the Psalms, had the
manuscript been written as late as the fifth century.

_ Partial and inaccurate collations of this manuscript were
made by Patrick Young, by Alexander Huish, Prebendary of
Wells, for Walton’s Polyglott, and by some others.

In 1786, Charles Godfrey Woide, preacher at the Dutch
Chapel Royal and Assistant Librarian in the British Museum,
a distinguished Coptic scholar [d. 1790], published, by the
aid of 456 subscribers, a noble folio edition of the New Testa-
ment from this manuscript, with valuable Prolegomena, a copy
of the text which so far as it has been tested has been found
reasonably accurate, notes on the changes made in the codex by
later hands, and a minute collation of its readings with the
common text as presented in Kuster’s edition of Mill’s N. T.
(1711). In this last point Woide has not been taken as a model
by subsequent editors of manuscripts, much to the inconvenience.

6—2

84 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

of the student. In 1816—28 the Old Testament portion of the
Codex Alexandrinus was published in four folio volumes at the
national expense, by the Rev. Henry Hervey Baber, also of the
British Museum, the Prolegomena to whose magnificent work
are very inferior to Woide’s, but contain some additional in-
formation. Both these works, and many others like them
which we shall have to describe, are printed in an uncial type,
bearing some general resemblance to that of their respective
originals, but which must not be supposed to convey any
adequate notion of their actual appearance. These quasi-fac-
similes (for they are nothing more), while they add to the cost
of the book, seem to answer no useful purpose whatever; and,
if taken by an incautious reader for more than they profess to
be, will seriously mislead him.

The Codex Alexandrinus has been judged to be carelessly
written; many errors of transcription no doubt exist, but not more
than in other copies of the highest value (e.g. Cod. δὲ). None
other than the ordinary abridgments are found in it (see p. 43):
numerals are not expressed by letters except in Apoc. vii. 4;
xxi. 17: ἐ and v have usually the dots over them at the begin-
ning of a syllable. Of itacisms (see p. 10) it may be doubted
whether it contains more than others of the same date: the
interchange of ὁ and εἰ, ἡ and ¢, ε and as, are the most frequent;
but such things are too common to prove anything touching
the country of the manuscript. Its external history renders it
very likely that it was written at Alexandria, that great manu-
factory of correct and elegant copies, while Egypt was yet a
Christian land: but such forms as λήμψομαι, ἐλάβαμεν, ἔνατος,
ἐκαθερίσθη, and others named by Woide, are peculiar to no
single nation, but are found repeatedly in Greek-Latin codices,
which unquestionably originated in Western Europe. This
manuscript is of the very greatest importance to the critic, inas-
much as it exhibits a text more nearly approaching that found
in later copies than is read in others of its high antiquity. ‘This
topic, however, will be discussed at length in another place
(Chap. vit.), and we shall elsewhere (Chap. 1x.) consider the
testimony Codex A bears in the celebrated passage 1 ‘Tim. iii. 16.

B. Copex VATicANus 1209 is one of the oldest vellum
manuscripts in existence, and is the glory of the great Vatican

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 85

Library at Rome. To these legitimate sources of deep interest
must be added the almost romantic curiosity which has been
excited by the jealous watchfulness of its official guardians, with
whom an honest zeal for its safe preservation seems to have now
degenerated into a species of capricious wilfulness, and who
have shewn a strange incapacity for making themselves the
proper use of a treasure they scarcely permit others more than
to gaze upon. This book seems to have been brought into the
Vatican Library shortly after its establishment by Pope Nicholas
V. who died in 1455, but nothing is known of its previous his-
tory. Since the missing portions at the end of the New Testa-
ment are said to have been supplied in the fifteenth century
from a manuscript belonging to Cardinal Bessarion, we may be
allowed to conjecture, if we please, that this learned Greek
brought the Codex into the west of Europe. Although this
book has not even yet been thoroughly collated, or rendered as
available as it might be to the critical student, its general
character and appearance are sufficiently well known!. It is a
quarto volume, of 146 leaves, bound in red morocco, ten and
a half inches high, ten broad, four and a half thick. It once
contained the whole Bible in Greek, the Old Testament of the
Septuagint version (a tolerably fair representation of which was
exhibited in the Roman edition as early as 1586), excepting the
first forty-six chapters of Genesis (the manuscript begins at
πολιν, Gen. xlvi. 48) and Psalms cv.—cxxxvii.; the New Tes-
tament complete down to Hebr. ix. 14 xa@a: the rest of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, the four Pastoral Epistles? (the Catholic
Epistles had followed the Acts) and the Apocalypse being
written in the later hand alluded to above. The peculiar ar-
rangement of three columns on a page, or six on the opened leaf
of the volume is described by eye-witnesses as very striking
(see above, p. 25): in the poetical books of the Old Testament

1 J derive some of the following particulars from two letters in the Guardian
of August 15 and 22, 1860, signed J. W. B. This writer is the latest I know of
who has been allowed to examine the manuscript, to which with great difficulty he
obtained access for an hour anda half. An excellent use he has made of his rare
though brief opportunity.

2 It is really a little unworthy of Dr Tregelles to speak of Dr Bloomfield’s
citations from Cod. B in the Pastoral Epistles as ‘‘ quotations invented by pure
imagination” (Horne Introd. 11. p. 159). Intentional fraud is out of the ques-
tion, and which of us has not fallen into errors just as gross?

86 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

(since they are written στιχηρῶς) only.two columns fill a page.
For this reason it would have been desirable that our facsimile
(No. 20, derived from Silvestre, Paléogr. Un. No. 60) should
have been taken elsewhere than from the Psalms: but since the
copper-plates in Mai’s larger edition of the Codex Vaticanus,
and the uncouth tracing by Zacagni in 1704, still repeated both
by Horne and Tregelles, have been strongly censured by recent
observers, we were bound to resort to the only one remaining
that was not obviously unworthy of its subject. All who have
inspected the Codex are loud in the praises of the fine thin
vellum, the clear and elegant hand of the first penman, the
simplicity of the whole style of the work: capital letters, so
frequent in the Codex Alexandrinus, were totally wanting in this
document for several centuries. In several of these particulars
our manuscript resembles the Herculanean rolls, and thus asserts
a just claim to high antiquity, which the absence of the usual
divisions into κεφάλαια, of the Ammonian sections and canons of
Eusebius, and the substitution in their room of-another scheme
of chapters of its own (which we have fully described above,
p- 47) beyond question tend very powerfully to confirm. Each
column contains about forty-two lines, each line from sixteen to
eighteen letters, of a size somewhat less than in the Codex
Alexandrinus, with no intervals between the words, a space of
the breadth of half a letter being left at the end of a sentence,
and a little more at the conclusion of a paragraph. It has been
doubted whether any of the stops are primd manu, and (contrary
to the judgment of Birch and others) the breathings and accents
are now generally allowed to have been added by the second hand.
This hand, apparently of about the eighth century, retraced,
with as much care as such an operation would permit, the faint
lines of the original writing (the ink whereof was perhaps never
quite black), the remains of which can even now be seen by a
keen-sighted reader by the side of the more modern strokes ;
and anxious at the same time to represent a critical revision of
the text, the writer left untouched such words or letters as he
wished to reject. In these places, where no breathings or accents
and scarcely any stops’ have ever been detected, we have an

1 Hug says none, but Tischendorf (Cod. Frid-Aug. Proleg. p. 9) himself
detected two in a part that the second scribe had left untouched; though a break
often occurs, with no stop by either hand,

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 87

opportunity of seeing the manuscript in its primitive condition,
before it had been tampered with by the later scribe. There
are occasional breaks in the continuity of the writing, every
descent in the genealogies of our Lord (Matth. i., Luke iii.),
each of the beatitudes (Matth. v.), and of the parables in Matth.
Xlil., forming a separate paragraph; but such a case will often-
times not occur for several consecutive pages. The writer’s-
plan was to proceed steadily with a book until it was finished:
then to break off from the column he was writing, and to begin
the next book on the very next column. ‘Thus only one column
perfectly blank is found in the whole volume, that which fol-
lows ἐφοβοῦντο yap in Mark xvi. 8: and since Cod. B is the
only one yet known, except Cod. δὲ, that actually omits the
last twelve verses of that Gospel, by leaving such a space the
scribe has intimated that he was fully aware of their existence,
or even found them in the copy from which he wrote (see
below, Chap. 1x.). The capital letters at the beginning of each
book are likewjse due to the corrector, who sometimes erased,
sometimes merely touched slightly, the original initial letter,
which (as in the Herculanean rolls) is no larger than any other.
These later capitals in blue or red, 2 of an inch high, and the
broad green bar, surmounted with three red crosses, which habi-
tually stands at the head of a book (see our facsimile, No. 20,
of Psalm i. 1), are in paint, and by the same second hand.
Fewer abridgments than usual occur in this venerable copy;
e.g. AATEIA is always used, not AAA: the formation of delta,
pt, chi; the loop-like curve on the left side of alpha, the absence
of points at the extremities of sigma or epsilon, the length and
size of rho, upsilon, phi all point to the FOURTH century as the
date of this manuscript. The smaller letters so often found at
the end of lines preserve the same firm and simple character as
the rest; of the apostrophus, so frequent in Cod. A and some
others, we are told nothing here.

Tischendorf says truly enough that something like a history
might be written of the futile attempts to collate Cod. B, and a
very unprofitable history it would be. The manuscript is first
distinctly heard of (for it does not appear to have been used for
the Complutensian Polyglott) by Sepulveda, to whose corre-
spondence with Erasmus attention has been seasonably recalled
by Tregelles. Writing in 1534, he says, “Est enim Grecum

88 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

exemplar antiquissimum in Bibliothecé Vaticana, in quo dili-
gentissimé et accuratissimé literis majusculis conscriptum utrum-
que Testamentum continetur long? diversum a vulgatis exem-
plaribus:”’ and after noticing as a weighty proof of its excellence
its agreement with the Latin version (multum convenit cum
vetere nostra translatione) against the common Greek text (vul-
gatam Grecorum editionem), he furnishes Erasmus with 365
readings as a convincing argument in support of his statements.
It would probably be from this list that in his Annotations to
the Acts, published in 1535, Erasmus cites the reading καῦδα,
ch. xxvii. 16, from a Greek codex in the Pontifical Library, since
for this reading Cod. B is the only known Greek witness. It
seems, however, that he had obtained some account of this manu-
script from Paul Bombasius as.early as 1521 (see Wetstein’s
Proleg. N. T.1. p. 23). Lucas Brugensis, who published his No-
tationes in 8. Biblia in 1580, and his Commentary on the Four
Gospels (dedicated to Cardinal Bellarmine) in 1606, made known
certain extracts from Cod. B taken by Werner of Nimuegen; that
most imperfect collection was the only source from which Mill
and even Wetstein had any knowledge of the contents of this
first-rate document. More indeed might have been gleaned from
the Barberini readings gathered in or about 1624 (of which
we shall speak in the next section), but their real value and
character were not known in the lifetime of Wetstein. In
1698 Laurence Alexander Zacagni, Librarian of the Vatican, in
his Preface to the Collectanea Monumentorum Veterum Eccles.,
describes Cod. B, and especially its peculiar division into sections,
in a passage cited by Mill (Proleg. § 1480). In 1669 indeed
the first real collation of the manuscript had been attempted
by Bartolocci, then librarian of the Vatican; from some acci-
dent, however, it was never published, though a transcript
under the feigned name of Giulio di Sta Anastasia yet remains
in the Imperial Library of Paris (MSS. Gr. Supp. 53), where it
was first discovered and used by Scholz, and subsequently by
Tischendorf and Muralt, the latter of whom (apparently on but
slender grounds) regards it as the best hitherto made; others
have declared it to be very imperfect, and quite inferior to those
of Bentley and Birch. The collation which bears Bentley’s
name was procured about 1720 by his money and the labour of
the Abbate Mico, for the purpose of his projected Greek Testa-

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 89

ment. When he had found out its defects, by means of an
examination of the original by his nephew Thomas Bentley in
1726, our great critic engaged the Abbate Rulotta for 40 scudi to
revise Mico’s sheets, and especially to note the changes made by
the second hand. Rulotta’s papers have recently come to light
among the Bentley manuscripts in the Library of Trinity Col-
lege, Cambridge (B. xvir. 20), and have lately proved of signal
value; Mico’s were published in 1799 at Oxford, by Henry
Ford, Prelector of Arabic there, together with some Thebaic
fragments of the New Testament, in a volume which (since it was
chiefly drawn from Woide’s posthumous papers) he was pleased
to call an Appendix to the Codex Alexandrinus. A fourth colla-
tion of the Vatican MS. was made by Andrew Birch of Copen-
hagen, and is included in the notes to the first volume of his
Greek Testament 1788, or published separately in 1798 and 1801.
Birch’s collation does not extend to the Gospels of St Luke and
St John, and on the whole is less full and exact than Mico’s:
possibly, though he travelled under the auspices of the King of
Denmark, the system of jealous exclusion of strangers from their
choicest books had already commenced at Rome. Certain it is
that since Birch’s day no one not in the confidence of the Papal
Court has had fair access to this document. In 1810, however,
when, with the other best treasures of the Vatican, Codex B was
at Paris, the celebrated critic J. L. Hug sent forth his treatise
“de Antiquitate Vaticani Codicis Commentatio,” and though
even he did not perceive the need of a new and full collation of
it, he has the merit of first placing it in the paramount rank it
still holds as one of the oldest and most valuable of extant
monuments of sacred antiquity. His conclusion respecting its
date, not later than the middle of the fourth century, has been
acquiesced in with little opposition, though Tischendorf declares
rather pithily that he holds this belief “non propter Hugium
sed cum Hugio” (Cod. Ephraem. Proleg. p. 19). Some of his
reasons, no doubt, are weak enough’; but the strength of his

1 Thus the correspondence of Codex B with what St Basil (c. Eunom. 11. 19)
states he found in the middle of the fourth century, ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων,
in Eph. i. 1, viz. τοῖς οὖσιν without év’Epécw, though now read only in this and
the Sinai manuscript primd manu, and in one cursive copy secundd manu, seems
in itself of but little weight. Another point that has been raised is the position

of the Epistle to the Hebrews (see above, p. 62). But this argument can apply
only to the elder document from which the Vatican MS. was taken, and wherein

90 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

position depends on an accumulation of minute particulars,
against which there seems nothing to set up which would sug-
gest a lower period. On its retwn to Rome, thig volume was
no longer available for the free use and reference of critics. In
1843 Tischendorf, after long and anxious expectation during a
visit to Rome that lasted some months, obtained a sight of it
for two days of three hours each’, In 1844 Edward de Muralt
was admitted to the higher privilege of three days or nine hours
enjoyment of this treasure, and on the strength of the favour
published an edition of the New Testament, Ad fidem codicis
principis Vaticant, in 1846. Tregelles, who went to Rome in
1845 for the special purpose of consulting it, was treated even
worse. He had forearmed himself (as he fondly imagined) with
recommendatory letters from Cardinal Wiseman?, and was often
allowed to see the manuscript, but hindered from transcribing
any of its readings’, We are ashamed to record such childish
jealousy, yet thankful to believe that treatment thus illiberal
could befal a learned stranger in but one city of Christendom.
What the Papal authorities would not entrust to others, they
have at least the merit of attempting themselves. As early as
1836 Bishop Wiseman announced in his Lectures on the Con-
nection between Science and Revelation, Vol. 11. pp. 187—191,
that Cardinal Mai, whose services to classical and ecclesiastical
literature were renowned throughout Europe, was engaged on an
edition of the Codex Vaticanus, under the immediate sanction of
Pope Leo XII. As years passed by and no such work appeared,
adverse reports and evil surmises began to take the place of
hope, although the Cardinal often spoke of his work as already
finished, only that he desired to write full Prolegomena before it

this book unquestionably followed that to the Galatians. In Cod. B it always
stood in its present place, after 2 Thess., as in the Codices cited p. 62, note 2,
to which list add Codd. 189, 196.

1 Besides the 25 readings Tischendorf observed himself, Cardinal Mai supplied
him with 34 more for his N. Τὶ of 1849. His 7th edition of 1859 was enriched by
230 other readings furnished by private friends. Proleg. N. T. pp. exliii, exlvi.

3 Πέμπε δέ μιν Λυκίηνδε, πόρεν δ᾽ ὅγε σήματα λυγρά,

Tpdyas ἐν πίνακι πτυκτῷ θυμοφθορὰ πολλά.

3 “‘They would not let me open it,”’ he adds, “ without searching my pocket,
and depriving me of pen, ink, and paper.... If I looked at a passage too long the
two prelati would snatch the book out of my hand.” Ido not know where Dr
Dobbin (Dublin University Magazine, Nov. 1859, p. 614) met with this piquant
extract, whose authenticity, however, need not be questioned,

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 91

should appear. In September 1855 he died, honoured and ripe
in years; and at length, when no more seemed to be looked for
in that quarter, five quarto volumes issued from the Roman press
in 1858, the New Testament comprising the fifth volume, with a
slight and meagre preface by the Cardinal, and a letter to the
reader by “Carolus Vercellone, Sodalis Barnabites,”’ which told
in a few frank manly words how little accuracy we had to expect
in a work, by the publication of which he still persuaded himself
he was decorating Mai’s memory “nova usque gloria atque splen-
didiore corona” (Tom. 1. p. 11). The cause of that long delay
now required no explanation. In fact so long as Mai lived the
edition never would have appeared; for though he had not pa-
tience or special skill enough to accomplish his task well, he was
too good a scholar not to know that he had done it very ill. The
text is broken up into paragraphs, the numbers of the modern
chapters and verses being placed in the margin; the peculiar
divisions of the Codex Vaticanus sometimes omitted, sometimes
tampered with. The Greek type employed is not an imitation
of the uncial in the manuscript (of which circumstance we do
_ not complain), but has modern stops, breathings, accents, ὁ sub-
script, &c., as if the venerable document were written yesterday.
As regards the orthography it is partially, and only partially
modernised; clauses or whole passages omitted in the manuscript
are supplied from other sources, although the fact is duly noti-
fied!; sometimes the readings of the first hand are put in the
margin, while those of the second stand in the text, sometimes
the contrary: in a word the plan of the work exhibits all the
faults such a performance well can have. Nor is the execution
at all less objectionable. Although the five volumes were ten
years in printing (1828—38), Mai devoted to their superintend-
ence but his scanty spare hours, and even then workéd so care-
lessly that after cancelling a hundred pages for their incurable
want of exactness, he was reduced to the shift of making manual
corrections with moveable types, and projected huge tables of
errata, which Vercellone has in some measure tried to supply.
When once it is stated that the type was set from some printed
Greek Testament, the readings of the Codex itself being inserted
as corrections, and the whole revised by means of an assistant

1 The great gap in the Pauline Epistles (sce p. 85) is filled up from Vatic. us Ι
(Act, 158, Paul. 192) of the eleventh century.

92 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

who read the proof-sheets to the Cardinal while he inspected the
manuscript; no one will look for accuracy from a method which
could not possibly lead to it. Accordingly when Mai’s text
came to be compared with the collations of Bartolocci, of Mico,
of Rulotta and of Birch, or with the scattered readings which
had been, extracted by others, it was soon discovered that while
this edition has added very considerably to our knowledge of the
Codex Vaticanus, and often enabled us to form a decision on its
readings when the others were at variance; it was in its turn con-
victed by them of so many errors, oversights, and inconsistencies,
that its single evidence can never be used with confidence, espe-
cially when it agrees with the commonly received Greek text.
Immediately after the appearance of Mai’s expensive quartos, an
octavo reprint of the New Testament was struck off at Leipsic
for certain London booksellers, which proved but a hasty, slo-
venly and unscholarlike performance, and was put aside in 1859
by a cheap Roman edition in octavo, prepared like the quarto
by Mai, prefaced by another graceful and sensible epistle of Ver-
cellone. This last edition was undertaken by the Cardinal, after
sad experience had taught him the defects of his larger work,
and he took good care to avoid some of the worst of them: the
readings of the second hand are usually, though not always,
banished to the margin, their number on the whole is increased,
gross errors are corrected, omissions supplied, and the Vatican
chapters are given faithfully and in full. But Mai’s whole pro-
cedure in this matter is so truly unfortunate, that in a person
whose fame was less solidly grounded, we should impute it to
mere helpless incapacity. Not only did he split up the para-
graphs of his quarto into the modern chapters and verses (in
itself a most undesirable change, see above, p. 59), but by omit-
ting some*things and altering others, he introduced almost as
many errors as he removed. The last person who is known to
have examined the Codex (see above, p. 85, note 1), on consult-
ing it for sixteen passages out of hundreds wherein the two
are utterly at variance, discovered that the quarto was right in
seven of them, the octavo in nine: as if Mai were determined
that neither of his editions should supersede the use of the other.
Critics of evéry shade of opinion are unanimous on one point,
that a new edition of the Codex Vaticanus is as imperatively
needed as ever; one which shall preserve with accuracy all that

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 93

the first hand has written (transcriptural errors included), shall
note in every instance the corrections made by the second hand,
and wherever any one of the previous collators is in error, shall
expressly state the true reading.

Those who agree the most unreservedly respecting the age of
the Codex Vaticanus, vary widely in their estimate of its critical
value. By some it has been held in such undue esteem that its
readings, if probable in themselves, and supported (or even
though not supported) by two or three other copies and versions,
have been accepted in preference to the united testimony of all
authorities besides: while others have spoken of its text as one
of the most vicious extant. Without anticipating what must be
discussed hereafter (Chap. VII.) we may say at once, that neither
of these views can commend itself to impartial judges: that
while we accord to Cod. B as much weight as to any single
document in existence, we ought never to forget that it is but one
out of many, several of them being nearly (and one quite) as old,
aud in other respects as worthy of confidence as itself. One
marked feature, characteristic of this copy, is the great number
of its omissions, which has induced Dr Dobbin to speak of it as
presenting “an abbreviated text of the New Testament:” and
certainly the facts he states on this point are startling enough’.
He calculates that Codex B leaves out words or whole clauses
no less than 330 times in Matthew, 365 in Mark, 439 in Luke,
357 in John, 384 in the Acts, 681 in the surviving Epistles; or
2556 times in all. That no small proportion of these are mere
oversights of the scribe seems evident from a circumstance that
has only just come to light, namely, that this same scribe has
repeatedly written words and clauses twice over, a class of mis-
takes which Mai and the collators have seldom thought fit to
notice, inasmuch as the false addition has not been retraced by
the second hand, but which by no means enhances our estimate
of the care employed in copying this venerable record of primi-
tive Christianity?. Hug and others have referred the origin of
Codex B to Egypt, but (unlike in this respect to Codex A) its
history does not confirm their conjecture, and the argument

1 Dublin University Magazine, Nov. 1859, p. 620.

2 J.W.B. (of whom above, p. 85, note 1) cites four specimens of such repeti-
tions: Matth. xxi. 4, 5 words written twice over; 7b. xxvi. 56, 6 words; Luke i,
37, 3 words or one line; John xvii, 18, 19, 6 words.

94 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

derived from orthography or grammatical forms, we have before
intimated to be but slight and ambiguous.

C. Copex Epuraemt, No. 9 in the Imperial Library of
Paris, is a most valuable palimpsest containing portions of the
Septuagint version of the Old Testament on 64 leaves, and frag-
ments of every part of the New on 145 leaves, amounting on the
whole to less than two-thirds of the volume’, This manuscript
seems to have been brought from the East by Andrew John
Lasear [d. 1535], a learned Greek patronised by Lorenzo de’
Medici; it once belonged to Cardinal Nicolas Ridolphi of that
family, was brought into France by Queen Catherine de Medici
of evil memory, and so passed into the Royal Library at Paris?.
The ancient writing is barely legible, having been almost re-
moved about the twelfth century to receive some Greek works
of St Ephraem, the great Syrian Father [299—378]; a chemical
preparation applied at the instance of Fleck in 1834, though it
revived much that was before illegible, has defaced the vellum
with stains of various colours, from green and blue to black and
brown. The older writing was first noticed by Peter Allix
nearly two centuries ago; various readings extracted from it
were communicated by Boivin to Kuster, who published them
(under the notation of Paris 9) in his edition of Mill’s N. T,,

1 As this manuscript is of first-rate importance it is necessary to subjoin a full
list of the passages it contains, that it may not be cited e silentio for what it does
not exhibit: Matth. i. 2—v. 15; vii. 5—xvii. 26; xviii. 28—xxii. 20; xxiii. 17—
Xxiv. 10; XXiV. 45—XXV. 30; XXVi. 22—xxvli. If; xxvil. 47—xxviii. 14; Mark i.
17—Vi. 31; viii. 5—xii. 29; xiii. 1g—xvi. 20; Luke i. 2—ii. 5; ἢ, 42—iii, 21;
iv. 25—Vvi. 4; Vii 37—Vii. 16; viii. 28—xii. 3; xix. 42—XX. 27; xxi, 21—xxil. 19;
xxiii, 25—xxiv. 7; xxiv. 46—53; John i. 1—41; iii. 33—v. 16; vi. 38—vii. 3;
viii. 34—ix. 11; xi. 8—46; xiii. 8—xiv. 7; xvi. 21—xviil. 36; xx. 26—xxi. 25;
Acts i, 2—iv. 3; Vv. 35—x. 42; xiii. 1—xvi. 36; xx. 10—xxi. 30; xxii. 21—xxiii.
18 ; xxiv. 15—xxvi. 19; xxvii. 16—xxviii. 8; Jac. i. 1—iv. 2; 1 Pet. i. 2—iv. 6;
2 Pet. i, 1—1 Jo. iv. 2; 3 Jo. 3—15; Jud, 3—25; Rom. i, r—ii. 5; iii. 21—ix.
6; x. 15—xi. 31; xiii. ro—x Cor. vii. 18; ix. 6—xiii. 8; xv. 4o—2 Cor. x, 8;
Gal. i. 20 —vi. 18; Ephes, ii. 18—iv. 17; Phil. i. 22—iii. 5; Col, i. r—1 Thess. ii.
9; Hebr. ii. 4—vii. 26; ix. 15—x. 24; xii. 15—xili. 25; 1 Tim, iii. 9—v. 20; vi.
21—Philem. 25; Apoc. i. 1—iii, 19; v. 14—vii. 14; vii. 17—Vviii, 5; ix. 16—
X. 10; xi. 3—xvi. 13; xviii. 2—xix. 5. Of all the books only 2 John and 2 Thess,
are entirely lost; about 37 chapters of the Gospels, 10 of the Acts, 42 of the
Epistles, 8 of the Apocalypse have perished,

2 The following Medicean manuscripts seem to have come into the Imperial
Library by the same means: Evan, 16, 19. 317. Act, 12, 126, Paul. 164,

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 95

1711. A complete collation of the New Testament was first made
by Wetstein in 1716, then very young, for Bentley’s projected
edition, for which labour (as he records the fact himself) he paid
Wetstein £50. This collation Wetstein of course used for his
own Greek Testament of 1751—2, and though several persons
subsequently examined the manuscript, and so became aware that
more might be gathered from it, it was not until 1843 that
Tischendorf brought out at Leipsic his full and noble edition of
the New Testament portion; the Old Testament he published in
1845, Although Tischendorf complains of the typographical
errors made in his absence in the former of these two volumes,
and has corrected them in the other, they probably comprise by far
the most masterly production of this nature up to that date pub-
lished; it is said too that none but those who have seen Codex C
can appreciate the difficulty of decyphering some parts of it},
The Prolegomena are especially valuable; the uncial type does
not aim at being an imitation, but the facsimile (from which a
few lines have been copied in Plate 9, No. 24, from 1 Tim. iii. 16)
faithfully represents the original, even to the present colour of
the ink. In shape Codex C is about the size of Cod. A, but not
quite so tall; its vellum is hardly so fine as that of Cod. A and
a few others, yet sufficiently good. In this copy there is but one
column in a page, which contains from 40 to 46 lines (usually
41), the characters being a little smaller than either A or B, and
somewhat more elaborate. ‘Thus the points at the ends of sigma,
epsilon, and especially of the horizontal line of taw, are more de-
cided than in Codex A; delta, though not so fully formed as in
later books, is less simple than in A, the strokes being of less
equal thickness, and the base more ornamented. On the other
hand, alpha and pi are nearer the model of Codex B. Jota and
upstlon, which in Cod. A and many other copies, have two dots
over them when they commence a syllable, and are sometimes
found with one dot, have here a small straight line in its place.
There are no breathings or accents by the first hand: the apo-
strophus is found but rarely, chiefly with Proper names, as a0’.
The uncial writing is continuous, the punctuation of Cod. C,
like that of A and B, consisting only οὗ ἃ single point, mostly

1 Canon Wordsworth (N. T. Part Iv. p. 159) reminds us of Wetstein’s state-

ment (Bentley's Correspondence, p. 501) that it had cost him two hours to read one
page; so that his £50 were not so easily earned, after all,

96 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

but not always put level with the top of the preceding letter;
wherever such a point was employed, a space of one letter broad
was usually left vacant: these points are most common in the later
books of the N. T. The κεφάλαια are not placed in the upper
margin of the page as in Cod. A, but a list of their τέίτλοι pre-
ceded each Gospel: the so-called Ammonian sections stand in the
margin, but not at present the Kusebian canons ; though since lines
of the text written in vermillion have been thoroughly washed out,
the canons (for which that colour was commonly employed) may
easily have shared the same fate. ‘There is no trace of chapters
in the Acts, Epistles or Apocalypse, and both the titles and sub-
scriptions to the various books are very simple. Capital letters
are used quite as freely as in Cod. A, both at the commencement
of the Ammonian sections, and in many other places. All these
circumstances taken together indicate for Cod. C as early a date
as the fifth century, though I see no sufficient cause for deeming
it at all older than Cod. A. Alexandria has been assigned as its
native country, for the very insufficient reasons stated when we
were describing A and B. It is very carefully transcribed, and
of its great critical value there is no doubt; its text seems to
stand nearly midway between A and B. Three correctors at
least have been at work on Cod. C, greatly to the perplexity of
the critical collator: they are respectively indicated by Tischen-
dorf as C*, C**, C***, The earliest may have been of the sixth
century: the second perhaps of the ninth, who revised such por-
tions only as were adapted to ecclesiastical use; he inserted
many accents, the rowgh breathing, and some notes. By him or
by the third hand (whose changes are but few) small crosses
were interpolated as stops, agreeably to the fashion of their
times.

D or THE GospeLs AND Acts, Coprex BrzAr GRAECO-
Latinus belongs to the University Library at Cambridge, where
the open volume is conspicuously exhibited to visitors in the
New Building. It was presented to the University in 1581 by
Theodore Beza, for whom and his master Calvin, the heads
of that learned body then cherished a veneration which already
boded ill for the peace of the English Church‘. Between the

1 Very remarkable is the language of the University in Jeturning thanks for
the gift: ‘‘Nam hoc scito, post unice scripture sacratissimanf cognitionem, nullos

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 97

Gospels (whose order was spoken of above, p. 62) and the
Acts, the Catholic Epistles once stood, of which only a few
verses remain in the Latin version (3 John v. 11—15) followed
by the words “epistulae Johanis 111. explicit, incipit actus
apostolorum,” as if St Jude’s Epistle were displaced or want-
ing. There are not a few hiatus both in the Greek and
Latin texts’. The contents of this remarkable document were
partially made known by numerous extracts from it, under the
designation of 8, in the margin of Robert Stephens’ Greek
Testament of 1550, whose history of it is that it was collated
for him in Italy by his friends (τὸ δὲ β' ἐστὶ τὸ ἐν ᾿Ιταλίᾳ
ὑπὸ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἀντιβχληθὲν φίλων) (Hpistle to the Reader)”.
It is not very easy to reconcile this statement with Beza’s
account to the University of Cambridge in 1581, wherein he

unquam ex omni memoria& temporum scriptores extitisse, quos memorabili viro
Johanni Calvino tibique preferamus.” Kipling’s Pref. to Codex Bez, p. xxiii.

1 Matth. i. 1—20; vi. 20—ix. 2; xxvii. 2—12; John i. 16—iii. 26; Acts viii.
29Q—x. 14; xxi. 2—10; 15—18 (though Wetstein cites several readings from these
verses, which must have been extant in his time); xxii, 1o—20; 29—xxvili. 31
in the Greek; Matth. i. 1—11; vi. 8—viii. 27; xxvi. 65—xxvii. 1; John i. r—
iii, 16; Acts vill. 20—x. 4; xx..3I1—xxi. 2; xxii. 2—10; xxii. 20—xxvili. 3I in
the Latin. The original writing has perished in the following, which are supplied
by later hands: Matth. iii. 7—16; Mark xvi, 15—20; John xviii. 14—xx. 13 in
the Greek, by a scribe not earlier than the tenth century, and Matth, ii. 21—iil. 7;
Mark xvi. 6—20; John xviii. 2—xx. 1 in the Latin, written in or about the ninth
century. A fragment, containing portions of Matth, xxvi. 65—67 (Latin) and xxvii.
2 (Greek), still remains, which however Kipling does not mention.

2 It is surprising that any one should have questioned the identity of Cod. D
with Stephens’ 8. No other manuscript has been discovered which agrees with β
in the many singular readings and arbitrary additions in support of which it is
cited by Stephens. That he omitted so many more than he inserted is no argu-
ment against their identity, since we know that he did the same in the case of his
a (the Complutensian Polyglott) and ἡ (Codex L, Paris 62). The great inaccu-
racy of Stephens’ margin (the text is much better revised) is so visible from these
and other well-ascertained instances that no one ought to wonder if β is alleged
occasionally (not often) for readings which D does not contain. I do not find β
cited by Stephens after Acts xx. 24, except indeed in Rom. 111, το, in manifest
error, just as in the Apocalypse xix. 14 € (No. 6 of the Gospels), which does not
contain this book, is cited instead of ve; or as ca is quoted in xiil. 4, but not else-
where in the Apocalypse, undoubtedly in the place of is; or as ts, which had broken
off at xvii. 8, reappears instead of ve in xx. 3. In the various places named in the
last note, wherein the Greek of Cod. D is lost, β is cited only at Matth. xxvii. 3,
beyond question instead of 7; and for part of the reading in Acts ix. 31, 6 (to
which the whole rightly belongs) being alleged for the other part. In John xix. 6,
indeed, where the original Greek is missing, 8 is cited, but it is for a reading
actually extant in the modern hand which has there supplied Codex D’s defects +
The inference to be drawn from this last fact is tolerably evident.

98 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

alleges that he obtained the volume in 1562 from the monas-
tery of St Ivenzus at Lyons (“ oriente ibi civili bello”), where
it had long lain buried (“postquam ibi in pulvere diu jacu-
isset’’). This great city, it must be remembered, was sacked
in that very year by the infamous Des Adrets, whom it suited
to espouse for a while the cause of the Huguenots; and we
can hardly doubt that some one who had shared in the plun-
der of the abbey conveyed this portion of it to Beza, whose
influence at that juncture was paramount among the French
Reformed’. Patrick Young, the librarian of Charles I, who
first collated Cod. A and published from it the Epistles of
Clement in 1633, had also the honour of being the first to
completely examine Cod. D. An unusually full collation was
made for Walton’s Polyglott by pious Archbishop Ussher,
who devoted to these studies the doleful leisure of his latter
years. But a manuscript replete as this is with variations from
the sacred text beyond all other example could be adequately
represented only by being published in full; a design entrusted
by the University of Cambridge to Dr Thomas Kipling, after-
wards Dean of Peterborough, whose ‘‘ Codex Theodori Bezae
Cantabrigiensis” 1793, 2 vol. fol. (in type imitating the ori-
ginal handwriting much more closely than in Codices AC and
the rest), is believed to be a faithful transcript of the text,
though the Prolegomena too plainly testify to the editor’s
pitiable ignorance of sacred criticism, while his frequent habit
of placing the readings of the second hand in the text, and those

1 I cannot understand why Wetstein (N. T. Proleg. Vol. I. 30) should have
supposed that Beza prevaricated as to the means whereby he procured his manu-
script. He was not the man to be at all ashamed of spoiling the Philistines, and
the bare mention of Lyons in connexion with the year 1562 would have been
abundantly intelligible scarce twenty years afterwards. It is however remarkable
that in the last edition of his,Annotations (1598) he nowhere calls it Codex Lug-
dunensis, but Claromontanus (notes on Luke xix. 26; Acts xx. 3); for though it
might be natural that Beza, at eighty years of age and after the lapse of so long a
time, should confound the Lyons copy with his own Codex Claromontanus of St
Paul’s Epistles (Ὁ); yet the only way in which we can account for the Codex
Beze being collated in Jtaly for Stephens, is by adopting Wetstein’s suggestion
that it was the actual copy (‘‘antiquissimum codicem Gracum”’) taken to the
Council of Trent in 1546 by William a Prato, Bishop of Clermont in Auvergne, to
confirm the Latin reading in John xxi. 22, “sic eum volo,” which D alone is known
to do. Some learned man (ὑπὸ τῶν ἡμετέρων φίλων does not well suit his son
Henry) might have sent to Robert Stephens from Trent the readings of a manu-
script to which attention had been thus specially directed.

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 99

of the first hand in the notes (a defect we have also noted in Mai’s
Cod. B) renders his volumes inconvenient for use. Let Kipling
be praised for the care and exact diligence his work evinces,
but Herbert Marsh [1757—1839] was of all Cambridge men of
that period the only one known to be competent for such a task.

The Codex Bezae is a quarto volume 10 inches high by
8 broad; of 414 leaves (whereof 11 are more or less mutilated,
and 9 by later hands), with one column on a page, the Greek
text and its Latin version being parallel, the Greek on the left,
or.verso of each leaf, and the Latin on the right, opposite to it,
on the recto of the next. Notwithstanding the Alexandrine
forms that abound in it more than in any other copy, and
which have been held to prove the Egyptian origin of Codd.
ABC, the fact of its having a Latin version sufficiently at-
tests its Western origin. ‘The vellum is not quite equal in
fineness to that of a few others. There are thirty-three lines
in every page, and these of unequal length, as this manu-
script is arranged in στίχοι, being the earliest in date that
isso. The Latin is placed in the same line and as nearly as
possible in the same order as the corresponding Greek. It has
not the larger κεφάλαια or Eusebian canons, but the Ammonian
sections, often incorrectly placed, and obviously in a later
hand. The original absence of these divisions is no proof that
the book was not at first intended for ecclesiastical use (as
some have stated), inasmuch as the sections and canons were
constructed for a very different purpose (see above, p. 50), but
is another argument for its being copied in the West, perhaps
not far from the place where it rested so long. ‘The charac-
ters are of the same size as in C, smaller than in AB, but
betray a later age than any of these, although the Latin
as well as the Greek is written continuously, excepting that
in the titles and subscriptions of the several books (as in
Codd. DH of St Paul) the words are separated. With regard
to the use of capitals, Cod. D agrees with Cod. & (see p. 78).
As a specimen of the style of this manuscript we subjoin about
half a page both of the Greek and Latin (pp. 148, 9, Matth.
xxiv. 51—xxv. 6), which the shape of the present volume
has compelled us to print lengthwise. The type cast for
Kipling’s edition, which is here employed, is so wonder-
fully exact, that it possesses nearly all the advantages of an

(2.2

ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

100

NONOLIIHIA WIS. DOLMANSYOHOSMN
NOVASONMIINAIVOVUNYEYLIANS

Loi pwANAOLIVIOLNOZINOdX
NO.LAYNODY VUANYYNOO.LY LIN
JIOIIOIIVIOLOLNINOSYINOAY YI
lONINOd HIVIN-NODLA YOY SIO.LND
NOLYYINGD.LA WOOSWINOAUYYIMAO

NLA VOVY ΜΙΝ YO WL INO A OPV VINE ONINA OLY
lLOWINOD H9-LNILIYSE
IVTOMWNINYOHNGO.LAYZ9SSVIOLNSOLL
IHPWANSHALINE
LOIPWAN AOL.NIDH.LNY UNSISNOOYH ΞΘ
NOLAYVIOVY VILA Y OWL
IVDAOUYYOINLLIY- DIONDOd VUNMSY

NONI AONGD.LYISVIOVIH-IN.LIOHOMIOMOILOL > HES

N@®LNOVONMLOIOW UAL AOI

101

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT.

1 S3SN.LOVdAYOUOY]9-9-LOONUO3.LN YIP3UD

ΤΟΙ Opts - SONWOLNND TSInY¥Livotop
OSNOJSUDSD.LOVYILNY PTL

SINS SH.qipwvd WY]UON.DS

SINSSISVANIUONS]/OLNAY9Sd9900¥

UO9.LN.YSILNSLYS- SINSSISYONI

UdN.S]OUNNDSS LNN Aad SOOYVNON
SYNSSVYPVEUON] 59. ΜΝ 91{ἸὈΌΜΟ 99. ἷς

9 ΘΙ ΓΝ 9 ΒΝ Β...95

IVLIALSLINGYS StyxSU09.Ln yan bNiInb

IVSNOSS.L9

ISNOd SUVINGONLLND 91Χ9..9

ΣΨΩΣ ΣΥΡΝΓΟΟΝΊ

INn 9 [9ΟΌνΘΥ δ. σα Ν Ὁ δ ΟΘΌΘΡ

τ TOJSWYOUINND|SYYA.LIg ¥]IWUOISONDAL

Lon LNoOpToprt.LS4s

102 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

— actual facsimile. The horizontal strokes to the left, at the
bottom of rho and kappa, are not exaggerated in length,
though they are not so fine as in the original: the curves
in phi almost become angles (see p. 35): the hook to the left
of pi is sometimes omitted; in other respects the imitation is
complete, both in the Greek and Roman letters. In addition
to the single point, about three-fourths of the height of a
letter up, which often sub-divides the or/you in both languages
(e.g. ll. 3, 9, 11, 16), the coarser hand which inserted the
Ammonian sections (e.g. C=H or 168 in 1. 2) placed double
dots (:) after the numerals, and often inserted similar points
in the text, before or over the first letter of a section. Each
member of the genealogy in Luke iii. forms a separate στίχος,
as in Cod B (p. 87): quotations are indicated by throwing
the commencement of the lines which contain them, both Greek
and Latin, about an inch back (e.g. Matth. xxvi. 31; Mark
i. 2; Act. ii. 34; iv. 25). The first three lines of each book,
in both languages, were written in bright red ink, which was
also employed in the alternate lines of the subscriptions, and
in other slight ornaments. The traces of the scribe’s needle
and lines (see p. 24) are very visible, the margin ample, and
the volume on the whole in good keeping, though its first
extant page (Latin) is much decayed, and it is stained in
parts by some chemical mixture that has been applied to it.
The portions supplied by a later hand are in the uncial Greek
and cursive Latin characters usual at the dates assigned to
them. The marginal notes of the Saturday and Sunday les-
sons (ανναγνοσμα is the form often used) are in thick letters
(of a later date than the Ammonian sections), which might have
been written by a Copt.

The leaves of the Codex Bezae are arranged in quires of four
sheets (or eight leaves) each, the numeral signatures of which
are set primé manu low in the margin at the foot of the last
page of each (see p. 24). It originally consisted of upwards of
64 quires, of which the Ist, 44th, and 64th, have each lost some
leaves, the 34th is entire though containing but six leaves,
while those signed I'(3), 1Δ (14), KB(22), ME (45)—NB (52),
NZ (57), and all after ἘΞΔ (04), are wholly wanting. It is not
easy to surmise what may have been written on the 67 leaves
that intervened between MA 5 and NI’ 1; the gap ends with

‘OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 103

3 John 11 (Greek), but the space is apparently too great for the
Catholic Epistles alone, even though we suppose that Jude was
inserted (as appears in some catalogues) otherwise than in the
last place.

The internal character of the Codex Bezae is a most dif-
ficult and indeed an almost inexhaustible theme. No known
manuscript contains so many bold and extensive interpola-
tions (six hundred, it is said, in the Acts alone), counte-
nanced, where they are not absolutely unsupported, chiefly
by the Old Latin and some of the Syriac versions: its own
parallel Latin translation is too servilely accommodated to
the Greek text to be regarded as an independent authority,
save where its corresponding Greek is lost. So far as the
topic can be discussed in an elementary work, it will be
touched upon in Chapter vil. For the present we shall sim-
ply say with Davidson that “its singularly corrupt text, in
connexion with its great antiquity, is a curious problem,
which cannot easily be solved” (Biblical Crit. Vol. 11 p.
288); though we are not disposed to imitate the blind policy
of Beza, who, alarmed by its wide diversities from other
copies, however ancient, suggested that “ vitandae quorundam
offensioni, asservandum potius quam publicandum”’ (Letter to
the University of Cambridge).

Of the manuscripts hitherto described Codd. SABC for their
critical value, Cod. D for its numberless and strange deviations
from other authorities, and all five for their high antiquity,
demanded a full description. Of those which follow many con-
tain but a few fragments of the Gospels, and others are so
recent in date that they hardly exceed in importance some of
the best cursive copies (e.g. FG@HSU). None of these need
detain us long.

1. Copex Bastirensis (B vi. 21, now K tv. 35) contains
the four Gospels, excepting Luke i. 4—15; xxiv. 47—53, and
was written about the middle of the eighth century. Three
leaves on which are Luke 1. 69—1i1. 4; xii. 58—xiii. 12; xv. 5
—20 are in a smaller and late hand, above the obliterated frag-
ments of a homily as old as the main body of the manuscript.
This copy is one of the best of the second-rate uncials, and
might well have been published at length. It was given toa
religious house in Basle by Cardinal John de Ragusio, who was

104 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

sent on a mission to the Greeks by the Council of Basle (1431),
and probably brought it from Constantinople. Erasmus over-
looked it for later books when preparing his Greek Testament
at Basle; indeed it was not brought into the Public Library
there before 1559. A collation was sent to Mill by John Bat-
tier, Greek Professor at Basle: Mill named it B. 1, and truly
declared it to be “probate fidei et bone note.” Bengel (who
obtained a few extracts from it) calls it Basil. a, but its first real
collator was Wetstein, whose native town it adorns. Since his
time, Tischendorf in 1843, Professor Miiller of Basle and Tre-
gelles in 1846, have independently collated it throughout. Judg-
ing from the specimen sent to him, Mill (N.T. Proleg. § 1118)
thought the hand much like that of Cod. A; the uncial letters
(though not so regular or neat) are firm, round and simple: there
is but one column of about 24 lines on the page; it has breathings
and accents pretty uniformly, and not ill placed; otherwise, from
the shape of many of the letters (e.g. theta, facsimile No. 26,
1. 4), it might be judged of earlier date: observe, however, the
oblong form of omicron where the space is crowded in the first line
of the facsimile, whereas the older scribes would have retained
the circular shape and made the letter very small (see p. 36,
and facsim. No. 11a, 1. 4). The single stop in Cod. Εἰ, as was
stated above (p. 42), changes its place according to the varia-
tion of its power, as in other copies of about the same age. The
capitals at the beginning of sections stand out in the margin as
in Codd. AC. There are no tables of Eusebian canons pre-
fixed to the Gospels, but lists of the larger κεφάλαια. These,
together with the numbers of the Ammonian sections in the
margin and the Eusebian canons beneath them, as well as har-
monising references to the other Gospels at the foot of the
page (see above, p. 51, note 2), names of feast days with their
Proper lessons, and other liturgical notices, have been inserted
(as some think) by a later hand. The value of this codex, as sup-
plying materials for criticism, is considerable. It approaches
more nearly than some others of its date to the text now com-
monly received, and is an excellent witness for it.

IF, Coprx Borer rt, now in the Public Library at Utrecht,
once belonged to John Boreel [d. 1629], Dutch ambassador at
the court of King James I. Wetstein obtained some readings
from it in 1730, as far as Luke xi, but stated that he knew not

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 105

where it then was. In 1830 Professor Heringa of Utrecht dis-
covered it in private hands at Arnheim, and procured it for his
University Library, where in 1850 Tregelles found it, though with
some difficulty, the leaves being torn and all loose in a box, and
made a facsimile ; Tischendorf had looked through it in 1841,
In 1843, after Heringa’s death, H. E. Vinke published that scho-
lar’s Disputatio de Codice Boreeliano, which includes a full and
exact collation of the text. It contains the Four Gospels with
many defects, some of which have been caused since the colla-
tion was made which Wetstein published: hence the codex
must still sometimes be cited on his authority as Εν, In fact
there are but 204 leaves and a few fragments remaining, written
with two columns of about 19 lines each on the page, in a tall,
oblong, upright form: it is referred by Tischendorf to the ninth,
by Tregelles to the tenth century. In St Luke there are no
less than 24 gaps; in Wetstein’s collation it began Matth. vii.
6, but now ix. 1: other hiatus are Matth. xii. 1—44; xiii. 55~
xiv. 9; xv. 20—31; xx. 18—xxi. 5; Mark 1. 43—ii. 8; ii. 23
—iil. 5; xi. 6—26; xiv. 54—xv. 5; xv. 39—xvi. 19; John iii.
5—14; iv. 23—388; v. 18—38; vi. 39—63; vii. 28—viii. 10;
x. 32—xi. 3; xi. 40—xii. 3; xii. 14—25: it ends xiii, 34,
Few manuscripts have fallen into such unworthy hands. The
Eusebian canons are wanting, the Ammonian sections standing
without them in the margin. Thus in Mark x. 13 (see facsimile,
No. 27) the section ps (106) has not under it the proper canon
B (2). The letters delta, epsilon, theta, omicron, and especially
the cross-like ps7 are of the most recent uncial form, phd is large
and bevelled at both ends; the breathings and accents are fully
and not incorrectly given.

F*, CopEx CoIstin. 1 is that great copy of the Septuagint
Octateuch, the glory of the Coislin Library, first made known
by Montfaucon (Biblioth. Coislin. 1715), and illustrated by a
facsimile in Silvestre’s Paléogr. Univ. No. 65. It contains 227
leaves in two columns, 13 inches by 9: the fine massive uncials
of the sixth or seventh century are much like Cod. A’s in general
appearance. In the margin prumé manu Wetstein found Acts
ix. 24, 25, and so inserted this as Cod. F in his list of MSS.
of the Acts. In 1842 Tischendorf observed 19 other passages of
the New Testament, which he published in his Monumenta sacra
inedita (p. 400, &c.) with a facsimile. The texts are Matth. v.

106 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

48; xii. 48; xxvii. 25; Luke i. 42; ii. 24; xxii. 21; John v.
35; vi. 58, 55; Acts iv. 33, 34; x. 13, 15; xxii. 22. 1 Cor.
vil. 39; xi. 29; 2 Cor. ii. 13; ix. 7; xi. 33; Gal. iy. 21,/22;
Col. ii. 16, 17; Hebr. x. 26.
G. Cop. HARLEIAN. 5684) These two copies were brought
or Wotrit A, from the East by Andrew Eras-
H. Cop. Wotrit B. mus Seidel, purchased by La
Croze, and by him presented to J. C. Wolff, who published
loose extracts from them both in his Anecdota Greca (Vol. 111.
1723), and actually mutilated them in 1721 in order to send
pieces to Bentley, among whose papers in Trinity College Library
(B. xvit. 20) Tregelles found the fragments in 1845 (Account of
the Printed Text, p. 160). Subsequently Cod. G came with the
rest of the Harleian collection into the British Museum; Cod.
H, which had long been missing, was brought to light in the
Public Library of Hamburgh, through Petersen the Librarian,
in 1838. Codd. GH have now been thoroughly collated both
by Tischendorf and Tregelles. Cod. G appears to be of the
tenth, Cod. H of the ninth century, and is stated to be of higher
critical value. Besides the mutilated fragments at Trinity Col-
lege (Matth. v. 29—31; 39—43 of Cod. G; Luke i. 3—6; 13
—15 of Cod. H), many parts of both have perished: viz. in
Cod. G 372 verses; Matth. i. 1—vi. 6; vii. 25—viii. 9; viii.
23—ix. 2; xxviii. 18—Mark i. 13; xiv. 19—25; Luke 1. 1—
13; v. 4—vil. 3; vill. 46—ix. 5; xii. 27—51; xxiv. 41—53;
John xviii. 5—19; xix. 4—27 (of which one later hand supplies
Matth. xxviii. 18—Mark i. 8; John xviii. 5—19; another Luke
xl. 27—51): in Cod. H 679 verses; Matth. i. l1—xv. 30; xxv.
33—xxvi. 3; Mark i. 32—ii.4; xv. 44—xvi. 14; Luke v. 18—
32; vi. 8—22; x. 2—19; John ix. 30—x. 25; xviii. 2—18;
xx. 12—25. Cod. G has some Church notes in the margin;
Cod. H the Ammonian sections without the Eusebian canons:
G however has both sections and canons. Both are written
in a somewhat rude style, with breathings and accents rather
irregularly placed, as was the fashion of their times; G in two
columns of 22 lines each on a page, H with one column of 23
lines. In each the latest form of the uncial letters is very
manifest (e.g. delta, theta), but G is the neater of the two. In
G the single point, in H a kind of Maltese cross, are the pre-
vailing marks of punctuation. Our facsimiles (Nos. 28 of G, 30

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 107

of H) are due to Tregelles; that of G he took from the fragment at

Trinity College. Inasmuch as beside Matth. v. 31 Ap (ἀρχὴ)
is conspicuous in the margin, and τέ THC Ac (τέλος τῆς λέξεως)
stands in the text itself, good scholars may be excused for
having mistaken it for a scrap of some Evangelistarium.

I. Cop. Tiscuenporr. II at St Petersburg, consists of
palimpsest fragments found by Tischendorf in 1853 “in the
dust of an Eastern library,” and published in his new series of
Monumenta sacra, Vol, 1.1855. On 28 vellum leaves (8 of
them on 4 double leaves) Georgian writing is above the partially
obliterated Greek, which is for the most part very hard to read.
They compose fragments of no less than seven different manu-
scripts; the first two, of the fifth century, are as old as Codd.
AC (the first having scarcely any capital letters and those very
slightly larger than the rest) ; the third fragment seems of the
sixth century, nearly of the date of Cod. N (p. 110), about as
old as Cod. P (see p. 113); the fourth scarcely less ancient: all
four, like other palimpsests, have the Ammonian sections with-
out the Eusebian canons (see p. 51). Of the Gospels we have
190 verses: viz. (Frag. 1) John xi. 50—xii. 9; xv. 12—xvi. 2;
xix. 11—24; (Frag. 2) Matth. xiv. 13—16; 19—23; xxiv. 37
—xxy. 1; xxv. 32—45; xxvi. 31—45; Mark ix. 14—22; xiv.
58—70; (Frag. 3) Matth. xvi. 22—xvii. 3; xvii. 11—19;
xix. 5—14; Luke xviii. 14—25; John iv. 52—v. 8; xx. 17—
26; (Frag. 4) Luke vii. 39—49; xxiv. 10—19. The fifth
fragment, containing portions of the Acts and St Paul’s Epistles
(1 Cor. xv. 53—xvi. 9; Tit. 1. 1—13; Acts xxviii. 8—17) is as
old as the third, if not as the first. The sixth and seventh
fragments are of the seventh century: viz. (Frag. 5, of two
leaves) Acts ii. 6—17; xxvi. 7—18; (Frag. 7, of one leaf) Acts
xiii. 39—46. In all seven are 255 verses. All except Frag. 6
are in two columns of from 29 to 18 lines each, and unaccen-
tuated; Frag. 6 has but one column on a page, with some
accents. The first five fragments, so far as they extend, must
be placed in the first rank as critical authorities. Tischendorf
gives us six facsimiles of them in the Monumenta sacra, a
seventh in Anecdota sacra et profana, 1855.

K. Cop. Cyprivs or No. 63 of the Imperial Library at Paris,
shares only with Codd. MSU the advantage of being a com-

108 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

plete uncial copy of the Four Gospels. It was brought into the
Colbert Library from Cyprus in 1673; Mill inserted its readings
from Simon; it was re-examined by Scholz, whose inaccuracies
(especially those in his collation of Cod. K in his “ Cure Cri-
ticee in Historiam textts Evangeliorum,” Heidelberg. 1820) have
been strongly denounced by later editors, and I fear with too
good reason. The independent collations of Tischendorf and
Tregelles have now done all that can be needed for this copy.
It is an oblong 4to, in compressed uncials, of about the middle
of the ninth century, having one column of about 21 lines on
each page, but the hand-writing is irregular and varies much in
size. A single point being often found where the sense does
not require it, this codex has been thought to have been copied
from an older one arranged in στίχοι; the ends of each στίχος
may have been indicated in this manner by the scribe. The
subscriptions, τύτλοι, Ammonian sections, and indices of the
κεφάλαια of the last three Gospels are believed to be the work
of a later hand: the Eusebian canons are absent. The breath-
ings and accents are primé manu, but often omitted or incor-
rectly placed. Itacisms and permutations of consonants are
very frequent, and the text is of an unusual and interesting
character. Scholz regards the directions for the Church lessons,
even the ἀρχαὶ and τέλη in the margin at the beginning and
end of lessons, as by the original scribe. He transcribes at
length the ἐκλογάδιον τῶν 8 εὐαγγελιστῶν and the fragments of
a menology prefixed to Cod. K (N. T. Vol. τ. pp. 455—498 ;
see above, pp. 64, 68—75), of which tables it affords the ear-
liest specimen. The second hand writes at the end προσδέξη
ταύτην ἱτὴν δέλτον] ἡ ἁγία θεοτόκος καὶ ὁ ἅγιος Εὐτύχιος. The
style of this copy will be seen from our facsimile (No. 29) from
Luke xx. 9: the number of the larger chapter (O or 70) stands in
the margin, referring to the τίτλος, TAPABOAH AMITEAWNOC
at the top of the page. The two stops in 1. 2 illustrate the
unusual punctuation of this copy.

L. Cop. Rearus, No. 62 in the Imperial Library at Paris,
is by far the most remarkable document of its age and class.
It contains the Four Gospels, except the following passages,
Matth. iv. 22—v. 14; xxviii. 17—20; Mark x. 16—30; xv. 2
—20; John xxi. 15—25. It was written about the eighth
century and consists of 257 leaves 4to, of thick vellum, nearly

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 109

63 inches square, with two columns of 25 lines each on a page,
regularly marked, as we so often see, by the stylus and ruler.
This is doubtless Stephens’ 7, though he cites it erroneously in
Acts xxiv. 7 bis; xxv. 14; xxvii. 1; xxviii. 11: it was even
then in the Royal Libraty, although “ Roberto Stephano”’ is
marked in the volume. Wetstein collated Cod. L but loosely ;
Griesbach, who set a very high value on it, studied it with
peculiar care; Tischendorf published it in full in his Monwmenta
sacra tnedita, 1846. It is but carelessly written, and abounds
with errors of the ignorant scribe, who was more probably an
Egyptian than a native Greek. The breathings and accents are
often deficient, often added wrongly, and placed throughout
without rule or propriety. The apostrophus also is common,
and frequently out of place; the points are quite irregular, as
we have elsewhere stated (p. 42). Capitals occur plentifully,
often painted and in questionable taste (see facsim. No. 21), and
there is a tendency throughout to inelegant ornament. This
codex is in bad condition through damp, the ink brown or pale,
the uncial letters of a debased oblong shape: pAz is enormously
large and sometimes quite angular (p. 35), other letters are
such as might be looked for from its date; neither neat nor -
remarkably clear. The lessons for Sundays, festivals, &c.,
ἀρχαὶ and τέλη are marked everywhere in the margin, espe-
cially in St Matthew; there are also many corrections and im-
portant critical notes (e.g. Mark xvi. 8) in the text or margin,
apparently primé manu. Before each Gospel are indices of
the κεφάλαια, now imperfect: we find also the τίτλοι at the
head and occasionally at the foot of the several pages; the
numbers of the κεφάλαια (pointed out by the sign of the cross),
Ammonian sections and Eusebian canons in the inner margin’,
often ill put, as if only half understood. The critical weight of
this copy may best be discussed hereafter (Chap. vit); it will
here suffice barely to mention its resemblance to Cod. B, to the
citations of Origen [185—254], and to the margin of the Phi-
loxenian Syriac version [A.D. 616]. Cod. L abounds in what are
termed Alexandrian forms, beyond any other copy of its date.
M. Cop. Campranus, No. 48 in the Imperial Library at
1 In our facsimile (No. 21) of John xii. 13, 14, IA (14) is the number of the

κεφάλαιον περὶ τοῦ ὄνον, pa (101) of the Ammonian section, Z (7) of the Eusebian
Canon.

110 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

Paris, contains the Four Gospels complete in a small 4to form,
written in very elegant and minute uncials of the end of the
ninth century, with two columns of 24 lines each on a page.
The Abbé Francis des Camps gave it to Louis XIV, Jan. 1,
1707. This document is Kuster’s 2 {1711}; it was collated by
Wetstein, Scholz and Tregelles; transcribed in 1841 by Tisch-
endorf. Its synaxaria (see p. 65) have been published by Scholz
in the same place as those of Cod. K, and obviously with great
carelessness. Scholia abound in the margin (Tischendorf thinks
prima manu) in a very small hand, like in style to the Oxford
Plato (Clarke 39, above, p. 36): we find too Hippolytus’ chrono-
logy of the Gospels, Eusebius’ canons, and some Arabic scrawled
on the last leaf, of which the name of Jerusalem alone has been
read. It has breathings, accents pretty fairly given, and a musical
notation in red, so frequent in Church manuscripts of the age.
Its readings are very good; itacisms and ν ἐφελκυστικὸν are fre-
quent. ‘Tischendorf compares the form of its uncials to those of
Cod. V (below, p. 117); which, judging from the facsimile given
by Matthaei, we should deem somewhat less beautiful. From
our facsimile (No. 81) it will be seen that the round letters are
much narrowed, the later form of delta quite decided, while
pt and beta might look earlier. Our specimen (Matth. ii, 11)
represents the canon A, under the section TA.

N. Coprex Purrurevs. Only twelve leaves of this beau-
tiful copy remain, and some former possessor must have divided
them in order to obtain a better price from three purchasers
than from one; four leaves being now in the British Museum
(Cotton, C. xy.), six in the Vatican (No. 3785), two at Vienna
(Lambec. 2), at the end of a fragment of Genesis in a different
hand. The London fragments (Matth. xxvi. 57—65; xxvii.
26—34; John xiv. 2—10; xv. 15—22) were collated by Wet-
stein on his first visit to England in 1715, and marked in his
Greek Testament by the letter J: Scrivener transcribed them
in 1845, and announced that they contained 57 various read-
ings, of which Wetstein had given but 5. The Vienna frag-
ment (Luke xxiv. 13—21; 39—49) had long been known by
the descriptions of Lambeccius: Wetstein had called it N; Tres-
chow in 1773 and Alter in 1787 had given imperfect collations
of it. Scholz first noticed the Vatican leaves (Matth. xix.
6—13; xx. 6—22; xx. 29—xxi. 19), denoted them by I’, and

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. ΤΠ

used some readings extracted by Gaetano Marini. It was
reserved for Tischendorf (Monumenta sacra inedita, 1846) to
publish thent all in full, and to determine by actual inspection
that they were portions of the same manuscript, of the date
of about the end of the sixth century. This book is written
on the thinnest vellum (see p. 21), dyed purple, and the silver
letters (which have turned quite black) were impressed in some
way on it, but are too varied in shape, and at the end of the lines
in size, to admit the supposition of moveable type being used;
as some have thought to be the case in the Codex Argenteus
of the Gothic Gospels. The abridgements ΘΟ, XC &c. are
in gold; and some changes have been made by an ancient
second hand. The Ammonian sections and Eusebian canons
are faithfully given (see p. 53), and the Vatican portion has
the 41st, 46th and 47th τίώτλοι of St Matthew at the head
of the pages (see p. 49). Hach page has two columns of 16
lines, and the letters (about 10 or 12 in a line) are firm, uniform,
bold, and unornamented, though not quite so much so as ina
few older documents; their lower extremities are bevelled (No. 14).
Their size is at least four times that of the letters in Cod. A,
the punctuation quite as simple, being a single point (and that
usually neglected) level with the top of the letter (see our
facsimile, No 14, 1. 3), and there is no space left between words
even after stops. A few letters stand out as capitals at the
beginning of lines; of the breathings and accents, if such
they be, we have spoken above (p. 41). Letters diminished
at the end of a line do not lose their ancient shape, as in many
later books: compendia scribendi are rare, yet stands for N
at the end of a line no less than 29 times in the London leaves
alone, but y for as only once. I at the beginning of a syllable
has two dots over it, T but one. We have discussed above
(pp. 830—35) the shape of the alphabet in N (for by that single
letter Tischendorf denotes it), and compared it with others of
nearly the same date; alpha, omega, lambda look more ancient
than delta or xi. It exhibits strong Alexandrine forms, e.g.
παραλήμψομε, εὐχοσαν (the latter condemned secundd manu),
and not a few such itacisms as the changes of ὁ and εἰ, αὐ and e.

Ν᾽ Muser Brirrannict (Addit. 17136) is a 16° volume
containing the hymns of Severus in Syriac, and is one of the
books recently brought thither from the Nitrian desert. It is

112 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

a palimpsest, with a second Syriac work written below the
first, and under both four leaves (117, 118, 127, 128) contain
fragments of 16 verses of St John (xiii. 16; 17; 19; 20; 23;
94:26; 27; xvi. 7; 8; 125 13; 15316; 18549) a0 Pie
Tischendorf (and Tregelles about the same time) decyphered
with great difficulty, and published in the second volume of
his new collection of Monumenta sacra inedita. 116 finds the
Ammonian sections, the earliest form of uncial characters, no
capital letters, and only the simplest kind of punctuation: and
hesitates whether he shall assign the fragment to the 4th or
5th century.

O. No less than seven small fragments have borne this
mark. O of Wetstein was given by Anselmo Banduri to Mont-
faucon, and contains only Luke xviii. 11—14: this Tischen-
dorf discards as taken from an Evangelistarium (of the tenth
century, as he judges from the writing) chiefly because it wants
the Ammonian number at v.14. In its room he puts for Cod. O
Moscow Synod. 120 (Matthaei, 15), a few leaves of about the
ninth century (containing the 16 verses, John 1. 1—4; xx. 10—
13; 15—17; 20—24, with some scholia), used for binding a
copy of Chrysostom’s Homilies, brought from Mount Athos, and
published in Matthaei’s Greek Testament with a facsimile. Tre-
gelles also will append it to his edition of Cod. E (see p. 126).
In this fragment we find the cross-like ps? (p. 35), the interroga-
tive; (Jo. xx. 13), and the comma (¢d. v.12). The next five
comprise N. T. hymns.

O*. Magnificat and Benedictus in Greek uncials of the 8th
or 9th century, in a Latin book at Wolfenbiittel, is published by
Tischendorf, Anecdota sacr. et prof. 1855; as is also Οὐ, which
contains these two and Nunc Dimittis, of the ninth century,
and is at Oxford, Bodleian. Misc. Gr. 5 (Auct. 1). 4. 1) foll.
313—4!, O°. Magnificat in the Verona Psalter of the 6th century
(the Greek being written in Latin letters), published by Blan-
chini, (Vindicia Canon. Script. 1740). Οἱ, O*, both contain the
three hymns, O* in the great purple and silver Turin Psalter
of the 7th century ; O° of the 9th century at St Gall (Cod. 17),
partly written in Greek, partly in Latin.

1 These songs, with 13 others from the Old Testament and Apocrypha, though

partially written in uncial letters, are included in a volume of Psalms and Hymns,
whose prevailing character is early cursive,

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 113

P. CopEx GUELPHERBYTANUS A.) These are two palimps-

RPP ahs. dat Ceules selduudee ΤΣ ΚΕ ΝΣ Selle B Ἴ ests, discovered by F. A.
Knittel, Archdeacon of Wolfenbiittel, in the Ducal Library of
that city, which (together with some fragments of Ulphilas’
Gothic version) lie under the more modern writings of Isidore
of Seville. He published the whole in 1762, so far at least
as he could read them, though Tregelles believed more might
be decyphered, and 'Tischendorf, with his unconquerable energy,
has just re-edited the Greek portion in Vol. m1. of his Monu-
menta sacra tinedita (1860). The volume (called the Codex
Carolinus) seems to have been once at Bobbio, and has been
traced from Weissenburg to Mayence and Prague, till it was
bought by a Duke of Brunswick in 1689. Codex P contains,
on 43 leaves, 31 fragments of 486 verses, taken from all the
four Evangelists}; Οὐδ Q, on 13 leaves, 12 fragments of 235
verses from Luke and John’; but all can be traced only with
great difficulty. A few portions, once written in vermillion,
have quite departed, but Tischendorf has made material addi-
tions to Knittel’s labours, both in extent and accuracy. He
assigns P to the sixth, Q to the fifth century. Both are written
in two columns, the uncials being bold, round or square, those
of Q not a little the smaller. The capitals in P are large and
frequent, and both have the Ammonian sections without the
canons of Eusebius (but see above, p. 51). The table of τίτλοι
found in the volume is written in oblong uncials of a lower
date. Itacisms, what are termed Alexandrine forms, and the
usual contractions (IC, XC, KC, ΘΟ, YC, MHP, TINA, IAHM,

ANOC, AAA, M) occur in both copies. From Tischendorf’s
beautiful facsimiles of Codd. PQ we observe that while delta
is far more elaborate in P than Q, the precise contrary is the case
with pz. Epsilon and sigma in P have strong points at all the

1 Codex P contains Matth. i. 11—213; iii. 13—iv. 19; X. 719; X. 42—xXl. 11;
ΧΙ, 4o—50; xiv. I5—xv. 3; xv. 29—39; Mark i. 1—10; 111. 5-17; xiv. 13—
24; 48—61; xv. 12—37; Luke i. 1—13; ii. g—20; vi. 21—42; Vil. 32—vili. 2 ;
viii. 31—50; ix. 26—36; x. 36—xi. 4; xii. 34—45; xiv. 14—25; xv. 13—XvVi.
22; xviii. 13—39; XX. 21—xxi, 3; xxii. 3—16; xxiii, 22o—32; 45—56; xxiv. 14
—37; John i. 29—41; 11, 13—25; xxi. I—II.

2 Codex Q contains Luke iv. 34—v. 4; vi. 10—26; xii. 6—43; xv. 14—31;
Xvii. 34—xviii. 15; xviii. 34—xix. 11; xix. 47—Xx. 17; XX. 34—xxi. 8; xxii. 27
— 46; xxiii. 30—49; John xii. 3—20; xiv. 3—22.

114 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

extremities ; nw in each is of the ancient form exhibited in Codd.
ὡς NR (see p. 33); while in P alpha resembles in shape that
of our alphabet in Plate 11. No. 5, eta that in Plate mm. No. 7.
R. This letter also, like some that precede, has been used
to represent different books by various editors, a practice the
inconvenience of which is very manifest. (1) R of Griesbach and
Scholz is a fragment of two 4to leaves containing John i. 388—50,
at Tiibingen (published by Reuss, 1778), which from its thick
vellum, want of the Ammonian sections and Eusebian canons,
and the general resemblance of its uncials to those of late service
books, Tischendorf pronounces to be an Evangelistarium, and
puts in its room (2) in his N.'T. of 1849, 12 or 14 leaves of a
palimpsest in the Royal Library of Naples (Borbon. τι. C. 15) of
the eighth century, under a Typicum (see Suicer, Thes. Eccles.
Tom. 1. 1335) or Ritual of the Greek Church of the fourteenth
century. These are fragments from the first three Evangelists,
in oblong uncials, leaning to the right. Tischendorf, by chemi-
cal applications, was able in 1843 to read one page, in two columns
of 25 lines each (Mark xiv. 32—39), and saw the Ammonian
sections in the margin; the Eusebian canons he thinks have been
washed out: but in 1859 he calls this fragment W?, reserving
the letter R for (3) Codex Nitriensis, Brit. Museum, Additional
17211, the very important palimpsest containing on 45 leaves
about 505 verses of St Luke in 25 fragments!, under the black,
broad Syriac writing of Severus of Antioch against Gram-
maticus, of the ninth or tenth century. There are two columns
of about 25 lines each on a page; for their boldness and sim-
plicity the letters may be referred to the end of the sixth cen-
tury; we have given a facsimile of the manuscript (which
cannot be read in parts but with the utmost difficulty?), and
an alphabet collected from it (Nos. 5,17). In size and shape
the letters are much like those of Codd. INP, only that
they are somewhat irregular and straggling: the punctuation

1 Codex R contains Luke i, 1—13; i. 69—ii. 4; 16—27; iv. 38—v. 5; v. 25—
vi. 8; 18—31; vi. 49—Vvii. 22; viii. 5—15; Vili. 25—ix. 1; ix. 12—43; xX. 3—
16; xi. 4—27; xii. 4—15; 4o—52; xiii. 26—xiv. 1; xiv, 12—xv. 1; xv. 13—xvi.
16; xvii. 21—xviii. 10; xviii. 22—xx. 20; xx. 33—47}; xxi. 12—xxii. 6; xxii, 8
—I43 42—56; xxii. 71—xxiii. 11; xxiii, 38—s0.

2 In our facsimile we have not attempted to represent the extreme faintness of
the lines, which in parts are only just visible.

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 11

is effected by a single point almost level with the top of the
letter, as in Cod. N. The Ammonian sections are there with-
out the Eusebian canons, and the first two leaves are devoted
to the rérAo of St Luke. This most important palimpsest is
one of the 550 manuscripts brought to England about 1847,
from the Syrian convent of S. Mary Deipara, in the Nitrian
Desert, 70 miles N. W. of Cairo. When examined at the
British Museum by Canon Cureton, then one of the Librarians,
he discovered in the same volume, and published in 1851
(with six pages in facsimile), a palimpsest of 4000 lines of
Homer’s Iliad, not in the same hand as St Luke, but quite
as ancient. The fragments of St Luke were independently
transcribed, with most laudable patience, both by Tregelles
in 1854, and by Tischendorf in 1855. The latter has published
an edition of them in his Monumenta sacra inedit. Vol. 11. with
a facsimile. 'Tregelles (Horne’s Introd. Vol. tv. p. 184) calls
attention to a palimpsest fragment of St John’s Gospel, of
extreme antiquity, on beautiful vellum, with letters much like
those of Cod. B, which has been used more than once for Syriac
writing. This is also one of the Nitrian books (Brit. Mus.
Addit. 17136). It contains but 15 verses (John xiii. 16; 17;
191; 3205..205 0245.26 5.20 3) Ἐπ! 73 85 95 (123 13; 18% 09),
The writing is in two columns, with the Ammonian sections, but
not the Eusebian canons. One rough breathing is legible here.
S. Copex VaticAnus 354, contains the four Gospels en-
tire, and is the earliest dated manuscript of the Greek Testa-
ment. This is a folio of 234 leaves, written in large oblong or
compressed uncials: the Epistle to Carpianus and Eusebian
canons are prefixed, and it contains many later corrections, and
marginal notes (e.g. Matth. xxvu. 16, 17: wid. Tischendorf.
N.T.). Luke xxii. 43, 44; John. v. 4; vii. 53—viii. 11 are
obelized. At the end we read ἐγράφει ἡ τιμία δέλτος αὕτη
διὰ χειρὸς ἐμοῦ Muyand μοναχοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ μηνὶ paptio
a’ ἡμέρα εἰ, wpa ς΄, ἔτους ουνζ. ινδ. € i.e, A.D. 949, “ Codicem
bis diligenter contulimus,” says Birch: but collators in his
day (1781—3) seldom noticed orthographical forms or stated
where the readings agree with the received text: so that a
more thorough examination is still required. Tregelles and
Tischendorf, when at Rome, only inspected it: the latter states
that Birch’s facsimile (consisting of the obelized Jo. v..4) is
8—2

116 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

coarsely executed, while Blanchini’s is too elegant; he has
made another himself.

T. Coprex Boreranus 1, now in the Propaganda at Rome
(see below Cod. 180 of the Gospels), contains 13 or more 4to
leaves of Luke and John, with a Thebaic or Sahidic version
at their side, but on the opposite and left page. Each page
consists of two columns; a single point indicates a break in
the sense, but there are no other divisions. The fragment
contains Luke xxii. 20—xxiii. 20; John vi. 28—67; vi. 6
—viii. 32 (177 verses, since vii. 53—viii. 11 are wanting).
The portion containing St John, both in Greek and Egyptian,
was carefully edited at Rome in 1789 by A. A. Giorgi, an
Augustinian Eremite: his facsimile, however (vil. 35) seems
somewhat rough, though Tischendorf (who has inspected the
codex) says that its uncials look as if written by a Copt, from
their resemblance to Coptic letters: the shapes of alpha and
gota are specially noticeable. Birch had previously collated the
Greek text. Notwithstanding the constant presence of the rough
and smooth breathing in this copy, Giorgi refers it to the fourth
century, Tischendorf to the fifth, The Greek fragment of St
Luke was first collated by Mr Bradley H. Alford, and in-
serted by his brother Dean Alford in the fourth edition of his
Greek Testament, Vol. 1. (1859). Dr Tregelles had drawn Mr
Alford’s attention to it, from a hint thrown out by Zoega, in
p- 184 of his “Catalogus codd. Copt. MSS. qui in Museo Bor-
giano Velitris adservantur.” Romae 1810.

Τ᾿ is used by Tischendorf to indicate a few leaves in
Greek and Thebaic, which once belonged to Woide, and were
published with his other Thebaic fragments in Ford’s Appendix
to the Codex Alexandrinus, Oxon. 1799. They contain Luke
xii. 15—xiii. 32; John viii. 33—42 (85 verses). From the
second fragment it plainly appears (what the similarity of the
facsimiles had suggested to Tregelles) that T and δ᾽ are parts
of the same manuscript, for the page of T* which contains
John viii. 33 in Greek exhibits on its reverse the Thebaic
version of John viii. 23—32, of which T affords us only the
Greek text. This fact was first noted by Tischendorf (N.T.
1859), who adds that the Coptic scribe blundered much over
the Greek: e.g. βαβουσα Luke xiii. 21; so δεκαι for δεκα και,
v. 16,

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT, 117

~ U. Coprx Nantanus 1, so called from a former possessor,
is now in the Library of St Mark, Venice (I. vir). It con-
tains the four Gospels entire, carefully and luxuriously written _
in two columns of 21 lines each on the 4to page, scarcely be-
fore the tenth century, although the “letters are in general
an imitation of those used before the introduction of com-
pressed uncials ; but they do not belong to the age when full
and round writing was customary or natural, so that the
stiffness and want of ease is manifest” (Tregelles’ Horne, p.
202). Thus while the small o in 1.1 of our facsimile (No. 22)
is in the oldest style, the oblong omicrons creep in at the end
of lines 2 and 4. Munter sent some extracts from this copy to
Birch, who used them for his edition, and states that the book
contains the Eusebian canons. Accordingly in Mark v. 18, B
(in error for H) stands under the proper Ammonian section
μη (48). Tischendorf in 1843 and Tregelles in 1846 collated
Cod. U, thoroughly and independently, and compared their
work at Leipsic for the purpose of mutual correction.

V. Coprex Mosquensis, of the Holy Synod, is known
almost’ exclusively from Matthaei’s Greek Testament: he states,
no doubt most truly, that he collated it “bis diligentissimé,”
and gives a facsimile of it, assigning it to the eighth century.
Judging from Matthaei’s plate, itis hard to say why others have
dated it in the ninth. It contained in 1779, when first col-
lated, the Four Gospels in 8vo with the Ammonian sections
and Kusebian canons, in uncial letters down to John vii. 39,
our yap nv, and from that point in cursive letters of the 13th
century ; Matth. v. 44—vi. 12; ix. 18—x. 1 being lost: when
recollated but four years later Matth. xxii. 44—xxiii. 35; John
xxi. 10—25 had disappeared. Matthaei tells us that the manu-
script is written stichometrically, by a diligent scribe: its re-
semblance to Cod. M has been already mentioned (p. 110). The
cursive portion is Matthaei’s v, Scholz’s Evan. 250.

W:. Cop. Rea. Paris 314 consists of but two leaves at
the end of another book, containing Luke ix. 34—47; x. 12

1 1 say almost, for Bengel’s description makes it plain that this is the Moscow
manuscript from which F. C. Gross sent him the extracts, that Wetstein copied
and numbered Evan. 87. Bengel, however, states that the cursive portion from
John vii. onwards bears the date of 6508 or A.D. 1000. Scholz was the first to
notice this identity.

118 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

—22 (23 verses). Its date is about the eighth century; the
uncial letters are firmly written, delta and theta being of the
ordinary oblong shape of that period. Accents and breathings
are usually put; all the stops are expressed by a single point,
whose position makes no difference in its power (see p. 42).
This copy was adapted to Church use, but is not an Evan-
gelistari'um, inasmuch as it exhibits the Ammonian sections
and Eusebian canons’, and τέτλοι twice at the head of the page.
This fragment was brought to light by Scholz, and published
by Tischendorf, Monument. sacra ined. 1846. He considers
the fragment at Naples he had formerly numbered R (2) as ano-
ther portion of the same copy, and therefore indicatés it in
his 7th edition of the N.'T. (1859) as W? (see p. 114).

W* is assigned by Tischendorf to three leaves containing
Mark ii. 8—16; Luke i. 20—32; 64—79 (35 verses), which
have been washed to make a palimpsest, and the writing erased
in parts by a knife. There are also some traces of a Latin
version, but all these were used up to bind other books in
the library of St Gall. They are of the eighth century, and
have appeared in Vol. 111. of Monumenta sacra inedita, with a
facsimile, whose style closely resembles that of Cod. A, and its
kindred F'G of St Paul’s Epistles.

X. Coprex Monacensis in the University Library at Mu-
nich is a valuable folio manuscript of the end of the ninth or
early in the tenth century, containing the Four Gospels (in the
order described above p. 62), with serious defects?, and a com-
mentary (chiefly from Chrysostom) surrounding and interspersed
with the text of all but St Mark, in early cursive letters, not un-
like (in Tischendorf’s judgment) the celebrated Oxford Plato dated
895 (see p. 36). The very elegaut uncials of Cod. X “are small
and upright; though some of them are compressed, they seem

1 Notwithstanding the Eusebian canons have been washed out of W, a strong
confirmation of what was conjectured above, p. 51.

2 Codex X contains Matth. vi. 3—10; vii. 1—ix. 20; ix. 34—xi. 24) xii. 9—
xvi. 28; xvil. 14—xvili. 25; xix. 22—xxi. 13; xxi. 28—xxii. 22; xxiii. 27—xxiv.
2; xxiv. 23—35; xxv. I—30; xxvi. 69—xxvii. 12; Mark vi. 47—Luke i. 37; ii.
19—iii. 38; iv. 21—x. 37; xi. 1—xviii. 43; xx. 46—John ii, 22; vii. I—xiii. 5 ;
xiii, 20—xv. 25: xvi. 23—xxi. 25. The hiatus in John ii. 22—vii. 1 is supplied
on paper in a hand of the twelfth century; Mark xiv. 61—64; xiv. 72—xv. 4;
xv. 33—xvi. 6 are illegible in parts, and xvi, 6—8 have perished. Matth. v. 45
survives in the commentary.

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 119

as if they were partial imitations of those used in very early
copies” (Tregelles’ Horne p. 195, facsimile No. 33). Hach page
has two columns of about 45 lines each. There are no divisions
by τίτλοι or sections, nor notes to serve for ecclesiastical use.
This copy has been often removed; the ink has much faded,
and its general condition is bad. From a memorandum in the
beginning we find that it came from Rome to Ingoldstadt, and
that it was at Innsbruck in 1757; from Ingoldstadt it was
taken to Landshut, thence to Munich. When it was at In-
goldstadt Griesbach obtained some extracts from it through
Dobrowsky for his edition of the Greek Testament; Scholz
first collated it, in his usual unhappy way; Tischendorf in 1844,
Tregelles in 1846, examined it thoroughly, and compared and
verified the results of their independent collations.

Y. CopEex BArBERINI 225 at Rome (in the Library founded
by Cardinal Barberini in the 17th century) contains on six large
leaves the 137 verses John xvi. 3—xix. 41, of about the eighth
century. Tischendorf obtained access to it in 1843 for a few
hours, after some difficulty with the Prince Barberini, and pub-
lished it in his first instalment of Monuwmenta sacra inedita,
1846. Scholz had first noticed, and loosely collated it. A
later hand has coarsely retraced the letters, but the ancient
writing is plain and good. Accents and breathings are most
often neglected or placed wrongly: «@\7 are frequent at the
end of lines. For punctuation one, two, three or even four
points are employed, the power of the single point varying as in
Codd. E (see pp. 42, 104) © or B of the Apocalypse. The Am-
monian sections are without the Eusebian canons: and such
forms as λήμψεται xvi. 14, λήμψεσθε v. 24 occur. These few
uncial leaves are prefixed to a cursive copy of the Gospels with
Theophylact’s commentary (Evan. 392).

Z. CopEx DUBLINENSIS RESCRIPTUS, one of the chief palim-
psests extant, contains 290 verses of St Matthew's Gospel in 22
fragments!. It was discovered in 1787 by Dr John Barrett,
Senior Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, under some cursive

1 Codex Z contains Matth. i. 17—ii. 6; ii. 13—20; iv. 4—133 V. 45—Vi. 15;
vii. 16—viii. 6; x. 40—xi. 18; xii. 43—xiil. 11; xiii. 57—xiv. 18; xv. 13—23;
XVii. Q—17; xvii, 26—xviii. 6; xix. 4—12; 21—28; xx. 7—xxi. 8; xxl. 23—45;
xxii, 16—25; xxii, 37—xxili, 3; xxili, 13—23; xxiv. I5—25; ΧΧΥ͂. I—I1} Xxvi.
21I—29; 62—71.

120 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

writing of the 10th century or later, consisting of Chrysostom
de Sacerdotio, extracts from Epiphanius, &c. In the same
volume are portions of Isaiah and of Gregory Nazianzum, in
erased uncial letters, but not so ancient as the fragment of St
Matthew. All the 32 leaves of this Gospel that remain were
engraved in copper-plate facsimile at the expense of Trinity
College, and published by Barrett in 1801, furnished with Pro-
legomena, and the contents of each facsimile plate in modern
Greek characters, on the opposite page. The facsimiles are not
very accurate, and the form of the letters is stated to be less free
and symmetrical than in the original: yet from these plates (for
the want of a better guide) our alphabet (No. 6) and specimen
(No. 18) have been taken. The Greek type on the opposite
page has not been very well revised, and a comparison with the
copper-plate will occasionally convict it of errors, which have
been animadverted upon more severely than was quite necessary.
The Prolegomena are encumbered with a discussion of our Lord’s
genealogies quite foreign to the subject, and the tone of scholar-
ship is not very high; but Barrett’s judgment on the manu-
script is correct in the main, and his conclusion that it is as
old as the sixth century, has been generally received. Tre-
gelles in 1853 was permitted to apply a chemical mixture to
the vellum, which was already miserably discoloured, apparently
from the purple dye: he was thus enabled to add a little to
what Barrett had read long since, but he found that in most
places which that editor had left blank, the vellum had been cut
away or lost: it would no doubt have been better for Barrett
to have stated, in each particular case, why he had been unable
to give the text of the passage. Codex Z, like many others, and
for the same orthographical reasons, has been referred to Alex~
andria as its native country. It is written in 4to, with a
single column on a page of from 21 to 23 lines. The Ammon-
ian sections are given, but not the Eusebian canons: the τέτλοι
are written at the top of the pages, their numbers being set in
the margin. The writing is continuous, the single point either
rarely found or quite washed out: the abbreviations are very
few, and there are no breathings or accents. A space, propor-
tionate to the occasion, is usually left when there is a break
in the sense, and capitals extend into the margin when a new
section begins. The letters are in a plain, steady, beautiful

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 121

hand, some 18 or 20 in a line. The shape of alpha (which
varies a good deal) and especially of mu are very peculiar: phi
is inordinately large: delta has an upper curve which is not
usual: the same curves appear in zeta, lambda and chi. The
characters are less in size than in N, about equal to those in
R, much less than in AB.

Γι Coprex TIscHENDORFIAN. IV. was brought by Tischen-
dorf from an ‘‘ eastern monastery” (he usually describes the loca-
lity of his manuscripts in general terms), and was bought for the
Bodleian Library (Auct. T. Infra τι. 2) in 1855. It consists of 158
leaves in large quarto, with one column (of 24 not very straight
or regular lines) on a page, in uncials of the ninth century,
leaning slightly back, but otherwise much resembling Cod. K
in style (facsim. Plate x1. No. 8a). St Luke’s Gospel is com-
plete; the last ten leaves are hurt by damp, though still legible.
In St Mark only 105 verses are wanting (iil. 35—vi. 20); about
531 verses of the other Gospels survive’. 'Tischendorf, and
Tregelles by his leave, have independently collated this copy,
of which Tischendorf gives a facsimile in his Anecdota sacra
et profana, 1855. Some of its peculiar readings are very:
notable, and few uncials of its date deserve that more careful
study, which it has hardly yet received. In 1859 Tischendorf,
on his return from his third Eastern journey, took to St Peters-
burg 99 additional leaves of this self-same manuscript, doubt-
less procured from the same place as he had obtained the
Bodleian portion six years before (Notitia Cod. Sinait. p. 58).
This copy of the Gospels, though unfortunately in two distant
libraries, is now nearly perfect’, and at the end of St John’s
Gospel, in the newly-discovered portion, we find an inscription
which seems to fix the date: ετελειωθὴ ἡ δέλτος αὔτη μηνι
νοεμβριω Kb, wd. ἢ, ἥμερα ἕξ, wpa B. Tischendorf, by the aid:
of Ant. Pilgrami’s Calendarium chronicum medit potissimum
«δυΐ monumentis accommodatum, Vienn. 1781, pp. vi, 11, 105,
states that the only year between A.p. 800 and 950, on which
the Indiction was 8, and Nov. 27 fell on a Thursday, was 844. In

1 These are Matth. vi. 16—29; vii. 26—viii. 27; xii. 18—xiv. 15; xx. 25—
xxi, 19; xxii. 25—xxiii. 13; John vi. 14—vili. 3; xv. 24—xix. 6.

3 In the St Petersburg portion are all the rest of John, and Matth. i. r—y.
31; ix. 6—xii. 18; xiv. 15—xx. 25; xxiii, 13—xxviii. 20; or all St Matthew
except I15 verses,

122 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS e

the Oxford sheets we find tables of κεφάλαια before the Gospels
of Matthew and Luke, the τίτλοι at the heading of the pages,
their numbers rubro neatly set in the margin; capitals in red
at the commencement of these chapters; the Ammonian sections
and Eusebian canons in their usual places, and some liturgical
directions. Over the original breathings and accents some late
scrawler has in many places put others, in a very careless fashion.

A. Coprx SANGALLENSIS was first inspected by Gerbert
(1773), named by Scholz (N. T. 1830), and made fully known
to us by the admirable edition in lithographed facsimile of every
page, by H. Ch. M. Rettig, published at Zurich, 1836, with
copious and satisfactory Prolegomena. It is preserved and
was probably transcribed a thousand years since in the great
monastery of St Gall in the N.E. of Switzerland. It is rudely
written on 197 leaves of coarse vellum 4to, 10 inches by 8? in
size, with from 20 to 26 (usually 21) lines on each page, in
a very peculiar hand, with an interlinear Latin version, and
contains the four Gospels complete except John xix. 17—35.
Before St Matthew’s Gospel are placed Prologues, Latin verses,
the Eusebian canons in Roman letters, tables of the κεφάλαια
both in Greek and Latin, &c. Rettig thinks he has traced
several different scribes and inks employed on it, which might
happen easily enough in the Scriptorium of a monastery;
but, if so, their style of writing is very nearly the same, and
they doubtless copied from the same archetype, about the
same time. He has produced more convincing arguments to
shew that Cod. A is part of the same book as the Codex
Boernerianus, G of St Paul’s Epistles. Not only do they
exactly resemble each other in their whole arrangement and
appearance, but marginal notes by the first hand are found in
each, of precisely the same character. Thus the predestina-
rian doctrines of the heretic Godeschalk [d. 866] are pointed
out for refutation at the hard texts, Luke xiii. 24; John xii. 40
in A, and six times in α΄. St Mark’s Gospel is stated to

1 viz. Rom. iii. 5; 1 Cor. ii. 8; 1 Tim, ii: 4; iv. 10; vi. 4; 2 Tim. ii, rs.
Equally strong are the notices of Aganon, who is cited 8 times in A, 16 (I think)
inG. This personage was Bishop of Chartres, and a severe disciplinarian, who
died A.D. 941; a fact which does not hinder our assigning Cod. A to the ninth
century, as Rettig states that all notices of him are by a later hand. There is the
less need of multiplying proofs of this kind, as Tregelles has observed a circum:

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 123

represent a text different from that of the other Evangelists,
and the Latin version (which is clearly primé manu) seems
a mixture of the Vulgate with the older Italic, so altered and
accommodated to the Greek as to be of little critical value.
The penmen seem to have known but little Greek, and to
have copied from a manuscript written continuously, for the divi-
sions between the words are sometimes absurdly wrong; there
are scarcely any breathings or accents, except about the opening
of St Mark, and once an aspirate to éwra; what we find are
often falsely placed; and a dot is set in most places regularly
at the end of every Greek word. The letters have but little
tendency to the oblong shape, but delta and theta are decidedly
of the latest uncial type. Here, as in Cod. G, the mark >>>
is much used to fill up vacant spaces. The text from which
A was copied seems to have been arranged in στίχοι, for almost
every line has at least one Greek capital letter, grotesquely
ornamented in colours. We transcribe three lines, taken almost
at random, from pp. 80—1 (Matth. xx. 13—15), in order to
explain our meaning:

dixit uni eor amice non jjusto tibi mnne

εὐπεν * μοναδι" αὐτων * Etatpe * οὐκ" αδικω " σε" Ove

ex denario convenisti mecii_tolle tui et vade

Snvaptov svvepwvncac * μοι" ρον" το cov καὶ ὑπαγε

volo auté huic novissimo dare sicut et tibi anta non li
Θελω δὲ τουτω τω exyatw Sovvar wa και" σοι" H* οὐκ εξ

It will be observed that while in Cod. A a line begins at any
place, even in the middle of a word; if the capital letters be
assumed to commence the lines, the text divides itself into regu-
lar στίχοι. See above pp. 44—46. There are also the τύτλοι,
the Ammonian sections and the canons. The letters N and II, Z
and 3, T and 9, P and the Latin R are perpetually confounded.
As in the kindred Codd. Augiensis and Boerner. the Latin f is
much like τ. Tregelles has noted ὁ ascript in Cod. A, but this
is rare. There is no question that this document was written

stance which proves to a certainty the identity of Codd. Aand G. When he was
at Dresden he found in Cod. G twelve leaves of later writing in precisely the same
hand as several that are lithographed by Rettig, because they were attached to
Cod. A. ‘Thus,” he says, “these MSS. once formed ONE BOOK; and when sepa-
rated, some of the superfluous leaves with additional writing attached to the
former part, and some to the latter” (Tregelles’ Horne, p. 197).

194 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

by Latin (most probably by Jrish) monks, in the west of
Europe, during the ninth century. See below, Paul. Cod. G.

©. Coprex Tiscnenporr. I. was brought from the East by
Tischendorf in 1845, published by him in his Monumenta sacra
inedit. 1846, and deposited in the University Library at Leipsic.
It consists of but four leaves (all imperfect) 4to, of very thin
vellum, almost too brittle to be touched, so that each leaf is
kept separately in glass. It contains about 40 verses; viz.
Matth. xiii. 46—55 (in mere shreds); xiv. 8—29; xv. 4—14,
with the greater κεφάλαια in red; the Ammonian sections and
Eusebian canons in the inner margin. <A few breathings are’
primé manu, and many accents by two later correctors. The
stops (which are rather numerous) resemble Cod. Y, only that
four points are not found in ©. ‘Tischendorf places it towards
the end of the 7th century, assigning Mount Sinai or Lower
Egypt for its country. The uncials (especially €60C) are some-
what oblong, leaning to the right, but the writing is elegant and;
uniform; delta keeps its ancient shape, and the diameter of
theta does not extend beyond the curve (see p. 32).

A (1). . This letter was applied by Tischendorf in his N.T.
of 1849 to two torn fragments of vellum, which he found
used in the binding of an Arabic manuscript in the monastery
of St Catherine on Mount Sinai. They contain 14 verses;
viz. Matth. xx. 8—15; Luke i. 14—20; but since, on removing
the vellum from the Arabic book, he found it exhibit a portion
of St Matthew on one side of the leaf, of St Luke on the other,
he rightly concluded that the fragment belonged to an Evange-
listarium, dating from about the ninth century. This fragment
he published in the Annales Vindobonenses, 1846, but sub-
stituted in its room in his N.T. of 1859 (2).

CopEex ΤΊΒΟΠΕΝΡΟΙΕ, III, whose history, so far as we know
it, exactly resembles that of Cod. I’, and like it is now in the
Bodleian (Auct. Τ᾿, Infrat.1). It contains 157 leaves, but writ-
ten in two columns of 23 lines each, in small, oblong, clumsy,
sloping uncials of the eighth or ninth century (facsim. Plate x.
No. 8b). It has the Gospels of St Luke and St John complete,
with the subscription to St Mark, each Gospel being preceded
by tables of κεφάλαια, with the τίτλοι at the heads of the
pages, the numbers of the κεφάλαια, of the Ammonian sections,
and of Eusebian canons (these last rubro) being set in the

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 125

margin. There are also scholia interspersed, of some critical
value; a portion being in uncial characters. This copy also
was described (with a facsimile) by Tischendorf, Anecdota sacra
et profana, 1855, and collated by himself and T’egelles. Its
text is said to vary greatly from that common in the later
uncials, and to be very like Scholz’s 262 (Paris, 53).

Here again the history of this manuscript curiously coincides
with that of Cod. I. In his Notitia Cod. Stnaitici, p. 58,
Tischendorf describes an early cursive copy of St Matthew
and St Mark (the subscription to the latter being wanting), which
he took to St Petersburg in 1859, so exactly corresponding in
general appearance with Cod. A (although that be written in
uncial characters), as well as in the style and character of the
marginal scholia, often in small uncials, that he pronounces
them part of the same codex. Very possibly he might have
added that he procured the two from the same source: at any
rate the subscription to St Matthew at St Petersburg pre-
cisely resembles the other three subscriptions at Oxford, and
those in Paris 53 (Scholz’s 262)!, with which Tischendorf had
previously compared Cod. A (N. T. Proleg. p. CLxxvit, 7th
edition). These cursive leaves are preceded by Eusebius’ Epistle
to Carpianus, his table of canons, and a table of the κεφάλαια
of St Matthew. The térAoe in uncials head the pages, and
their numbers stand in the margin.

From the marginal scholia Tischendorf cites the following
notices of the Jewish Gospel, or that according to the Hebrews,
which certainly have their value as helping to inform us
respecting its nature: Matth. iv. 5, το tovdarKxov οὐκ exer εἰς τὴν
ayiay πολιν αλλ ev An. Xvi. 17, Βαριωνα" το ιουδαικον We
twavvov. XViil. 22, To tovdarxov e&ns ever μετὰ το ἑβδομηκον-
TAKS ἑἕπτα' καὶ yap εν τοῖς προφηταῖς μετὰ TO χρίσθηναι
auTous εν πνι ἁγιω εὑρίσκετω (sic) εν αὑτοῖς λογος ἁμαρτιας :
—an addition which Jerome (contra Pelag. 1.) expressly cites
from the Gospel of the Nazarenes. xxvi. 74, To ιουδαικον" καὶ
ἠρνήσατο καὶ ὠμοσεν Kat κατηράσατο. It is plain that this
whole matter requires careful discussion, but at present it would
seem that the first half of Cod. A was written in cursive, the

1 The subscription to St Matthew stands in both: ευαγγελιον κατα ματθαιον.
εγραφη και αντεβληθη εκ των [sic] ἱεροσολυμοις παλαίων αντιγραφων" τῶν εν TW ἁγιω
OPEL ἀποκειμενων" εν στιχοὶς βφιδ᾽ κεφῴφ. τνε.

120 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

second in uncial letters; if not by the same person, yet on the
same plan and at the same place.

=. Copex ZAcyNTuIvs is a palimpsest in the Library of the
British and Foreign Bible Society in London, which, under an
Evangelistarium written on coarse vellum in or about the 13th
century, contains large portions of St Luke, down to ch. xi. 33, in
full well-formed uncials, but surrounded by and often interwoven
with large extracts from the Fathers, in a hand so cramped and,
as regards the round letters (E@OC) so oblong, that it cannot
be earlier than the eighth century. As the arrangement of the
matter makes it certain that the commentary is contemporaneous,
it must be regarded as the earliest known copy furnished with
a catena (above, p. 56). This volume, which once belonged to
“Tl Principe Comuto, Zante,” and is marked as Μνημόσυνον
σεβάσματος τοῦ “Imméos ᾿Αντωνίονυ ΚΚόμητος 1820, was pre-
sented to the Bible Society in 1821 by General Macaulay, who
prought it from Zante. Mr Knolleke, one of the Secretaries,
seems first to have noticed the older writing, and on the disco-
very being communicated to Tregelles in 1858, with character-
istic eagerness he examined, decyphered and has announced the
Scripture text for publication: he doubts whether the small
Patristic writing can be read without chemical restoration.
Besides the usual τέτλοι above the text and other notations of
sections, and numbers which refer to the Catena running up from
1 to 100, this copy is remarkable for possessing also the division
into chapters, hitherto deemed unique in Cod. B (p. 48). To
this notation is commonly prefixed μὲ, formed like a cross, in
the fashion of the eighth century (above, p. 35). The ancient
volume must have been a large folio (14 inches by 11), of which
86 leaves and three half-leaves survive: of course very hard to
read. Of the ecclesiastical writers cited by name Chrysostom,
Origen and Cyril are the best known. The readings of this |
codex (which are very valuable) were communicated to Dean
Alford for his 4th edition of the N.'T., by Dr Tregelles, from
whose “ Description” our account is abridged. ‘The latter is on
the eve of publishing an edition of Cod. &, with a facsimile,
and the Moscow fragment O (see p. 112) appended to it.

The present seems the most fit place for naming six small
fragments of the Gospels, &c. in uncial letters, and another
manuscript almost complete, brought from the East in 1859

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 127

by Tischendorf, and now at St Petersburg. He has not yet
distinguished them by any special notation, but they are briefly
described in his Notitia Cod. Sinaitici, Appendix, pp. 50—2.

(1). Two large leaves, containing 1 Cor. i. 20—ii. 12, ele-
gantly written, without breathings or accents. This and the
next three fragments date from about the 6th century.

(2). Six 8vo leaves, containing 20 columns (the outer mar-
gins being often much cut) of Coptic-shaped uncials, with vacant
spaces instead of stops. here are two columns on a page.
They comprise Jo. 1. 25—42; ii. 9—iv. 50.

(3). Six leaves of large 8vo, very hard to decypher, having
been torn piecemeal from the binding of another book. They
contain parts of Matth. xxii. xxiii.; Mark iv. v.

(4). One folio leaf, in style of writing much resembling
Cod. N. Containing Matth. xxi. 19—24.

(5). One 8vo leaf of the 7th century, of thick uncials
without accents, torn from the wooden cover of a Syriac book.
Containing Acts ii. 45—iii. 8.

(6). Half a leaf, written in two columns of the 7th or 8th
century, with accents by a later hand. It contains Luke xi.
37—A1; 42—45.

(7). May perhaps hereafter be named & of the Gospels. It
consists of 350 vellum leaves in small 4to, and contains all the
Gospels except Matth. 11. 12—iv. 18; xix. 12—xx. 3; John
vill. 6—39; 77 verses. A century since it belonged to Paro-
dus, a noble Greek of Smyrna, and the present possessor was
persuaded by Tischendorf to present it to the Emperor of
Russia. He states that it is of the age of the later uncials
(meaning, we presume, the 8th or 9th century), but of higher
critical importance than most of them, and much like Cod. K
in its rarer readings. Though it is yet uncollated, Tischendorf
gives extracts from it of no very striking character. There
are many marginal corrections, and John v. 4; vii. 83—6 are
obelized. In the table of κεφάλαια before St Mark, there is a
gap after A*’: Mark xvi. 18—20; John xxi. 22—25 are in a
later hand. At the end of St Mark, the last Ammonian sec-
tion inserted is odd by the side of ἀναστὰς δὲ v. 9, with ἢ under
it for the Kusebian canon (see Chapter Ix).

125. ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

Manuscripts of the Acts and Catholic Epistles.

&. Cop. Srnarricus (described pp.76—9). A. Cop. ALEX-
ANDRINUS (pp. 79—84). B. Cop. VaTicanus (pp. 84—93). C.
Cop. ErHraEmi (pp. 94—6). 1). Copex BEzaz (pp. 96—103).

E. Copex Laupranus 35 is one of the most precious trea-
sures preserved in the Bodleian at Oxford. It is a Latin-Greek
copy, with two columns on a page, the Latin version holding the
post of honour on the /eft, and is written in very short στίχοι,
consisting of from one to three words each (p.45), the Latin words
always standing opposite to the corresponding Greek. This pecu-
liar arrangement points decisively to the West of Europe as its
country, notwithstanding the abundance of Alexandrian forms
has led some to refer it to Egypt. The very large, bold, thick,
rude uncials, without break in the words or accents, lead us
up to the end of the sixth century as its date. The Latin is
not of Jerome’s or the Vulgate version, but is made to corre-
spond closely with the Greek, even in its interpolations and
rarest various readings. The contrary supposition that the
Greek portion of this codex Latinised, or had been altered to
coincide with the Latin, is inconsistent with the facts of the
case. This manuscript contains only the Acts of the Apostles
(from xxvi. 29, παυλος to xxviii. 26, πορευθητι being lost), and
exhibits a remarkable modification of the text. ‘That the book
was once in Sardinia, appears from an edict of Flavius Pan-
cratius, συν θεω απὸ ἐπάρχων SovE σαρδινιας, appended (as also
is the Apostles’ Creed in Latin, and some other foreign matter)
in a later hand: Imperial governors ruled in that island with the
title of dua from the reign of Justinian A.D. 534 to A.D. 749.
It was probably among the Greek volumes brought into
England by the fellow-countryman of St Paul, Theodore of
Tarsus, “ the grand old man” as he has been recently called by
one of kindred spirit to his own (Dean Hook, Lives of the Arch-
bishops of Canterbury, Vol. 1. p. 150), who came to England as
Primate at the age of sixty-six A.p. 668, and died in 690, At
all events, Mill (Proleg. N. T. §. 1022—6) has rendered it all
but certain, that the Venerable Bede (d. 735) had this very
codex before him, when he wrote his Hxpositio Letractata of
the Acts, and Woide (Notitia Cod. Alex. p. 156, ἄς.) has
since alleged 32 additional instances of agreement between

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 129

them. This manuscript, with many others, was presented
to the University of Oxford in the year 1636, by its mu-
nificent Chancellor, Archbishop Laud. Thomas Hearne, the
celebrated antiquary, published a full edition of it in 1715,
which is now very scarce, and is known to be far from
accurate. 'Tischendorf purposes to re-edit it at some future
period, but it may be hoped, for our national honour, that
some English scholar will anticipate him. Cod. E is stated
to have capital letters at the commencement of each of the
Euthalian sections, but as the capitals occur at other places
where the sense is broken, this circumstance does not prove that
those sections were known to the scribe. It is in size 9 inches
by 74, and consists of 226 leaves of 23, 24, 25 or 26 lines;
the vellum is rather poor in quality, and the ink in many places
very faint. There seem to be no stops or breathings, except an
aspirate over initial wpsclon (v) almost invariably. The shape
of αὖ is more complicated than usual (see our facsimile, No. 25) ;
the other letters (e. g. delta or pst) such as were common in
the sixth or early in the seventh century.

IF’. Cop. Costin. 1, see above, p. 105.

G=L of Tischendorf (N. T. 1859). Cop. Brsiiorg.
ANGELICAE A. 2.15, belonging to the Augustinian monks at
Rome, formerly Cardinal Passione’s, contains the Acts, from
viii. 10, μὲς του θεου to the end, the Catholic Epistles complete,
and the Pauline down to Hebr. xiii. 10, οὐκ ἔχουσιν, of a date
not éarlier than the ninth century. It was collated in part
by Blanchini and Birch, in full by Scholz (1820) and F. F.
Fleck (1833). Tischendorf in 1843, Tregelles in 1845 collated
it independently, and subsequently compared their papers, as
they have done in several other instances.

H. Cop. Murinensis 196, of the Acts, in the Grand
Ducal Library at Modena, is an uncial copy of about the ninth
century, defective in Act. i. l—v. 28; ix. 39—x.19; xii. 36—
xiv. 3 (all supplied by a recent hand of the fifteenth century),
and in xxvii. 4—xxvill. 31 (supplied in uncials of about the
eleventh century). The Epistles are in cursive letters of the
twelfth century, indicated in the Catholic Epistles by h, in the
Pauline by 179. Scholz first collated it loosely, as usual;
then Tischendorf in 1843, Tregelles in 1846, afterwards com-
paring their collations for mutual correction. -

130 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

I. Cop. Perropo.ir. or Tischendorf. II, see above, p. 107.

K. Cop. Mosquensis, 8. Synodi No. 98, is Matthaei’s g,
and came from the monastery of St Dionysius on Mount Athos.
It contains the Catholic Epistles entire, but not the Acts; and
the Pauline Epistles are defective only in Rom. x. 1S—1 Cor.
vi. 13; 1 Cor. vii. 7—11. Matthaei alone has collated this
document, and judging from his facsimile (Cath. Epp. 1782)
it seems to belong to the ninth century. This copy is Scholz’s
Act. 102, Paul. 117.

Manuscripts of the Pauline Epistles.

ἀξ, Copex Srinarticus (described pp. 76—9). A. Cop.
ALEXANDRINUS (pp. 797—84). B. Cop. Varicanus (pp. 84—
93). C. Cop. EpHraem. (pp. 94—6).

D. Cop. CLaAromontTAnws, No. 107 of the Imperial Library
at Paris, is a Greek-Latin copy of St Paul’s Epistles, one of
the most ancient and important in existence. Like the Cod.
Ephraemi in the same Library it has been fortunate in such
an editor as 'Tischendorf, who published it in 1852 with com-
plete Prolegomena, and a facsimile traced by Tregelles. Ours
(No. 19) is taken from the Paléographie Universelle, No. 67,
which seemed more delicately executed. This noble volume is
in small quarto, written on 533 leaves of the thinnest and finest
vellum. The Greek and Latin are both written continuously
(except the Latin titles and subscriptions), but in a stichome-
trical form (see p. 46): the Greek, as in Cod. Bezae, stands on
the left or first page of the opened book, not on the right, as
in the Cod. Laudianus. Each page has but one column of
about 21 lines, so that in this copy, as in the Codex Bezae, the
Greek and Latin are in parallel lines, but on separate pages.
The ink has much faded, or gone off upon the opposite page:
otherwise the book is in good condition. It contains all St Paul’s
Kpistles (the Hebrews after Philemon), except Rom. i. 1—7;
27—30, both Greek and Latin: Rom. i. 24—27 in the Latin
is supplied in a later but very old hand, as also is 1 Cor. xiv.
13—22 in the Greek: the Latin of 1 Cor. xiv. 8—18; Hebr.
xiii, 21—23 is lost. The Epistle to the Hebrews has been
erroneously imputed by some to a later scribe, although it is
not included in the list of the sacred books, and of the number

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 131

of their στίχοι or versus, which stands immediately before the
Hebrews in this codex’: but the same list overlooks the Epistle
to the Philippians, which has never been doubted to be St Paul’s:
in this manuscript, however, the Epistle to the Colossians precedes
that to the Philippians. Our earliest notice of it is derived
from the Preface to Beza’s 3rd edition of the N. T. (20 Feb.
1582): he there describes it as of equal antiquity with his copy
of the Gospels (D), and states that it had been found “in Claro-
montano apud Bellovacos ecenobio,” at Clermont near Beauvais.
Although Beza sometimes through ‘inadvertence calls his codex
of the Gospels Claromontanus, there seems no reason for dis-
puting with Wetstein the correctness of his accoant (see p. 97),
though it throws no light on the manuscript’s early history.
From Beza it passed into the possession of Claude du Puy,
Councillor of Paris, probably on Beza’s death [1605]: thence
to his sons Jacques and Pierre du Puy; before the death of
Jacques (who was the King’s Librarian) in 1656, it had been
bought by Louis XIV. for the Royal Library at Paris. In 1707,
John Aymont, an apostate priest, stole 35 leaves; one, which
he disposed of in Holland, was restored in 1720 by its possessor
Stosch; the rest were sold to that great collector, Harley, Earl
of Oxford, but sent back in 1729 by his son, who had learnt
their shameful story. Leza made some, but not a considerable
use of this document; in Walton’s Polyglott were inserted 2245
readings sent by the du Puys to Ussher (MMll. N. T. Proleg.
§ 1284); Wetstein collated it twice in early life (1715—6) ;
Tregelles examined it in 1849, and compared his results with
the then unpublished transcript of Tischendorf; which proved on
its appearance (1852) the most difficult as well as one of the
most important, of his critical works; so hard it had been found
at times to determine satisfactorily the original readings of a
manuscript, which had been corrected by nine different hands,
ancient and modern. The date of the codex is doubtless the
sixth century, in the middle or towards the end of it. The
Latin letters Ὁ and ἃ are the latest in form (facsim. No. 19),

1 The names and order of the books of the New Testament in this most curious
and venerable list stand thus: Matthew, John, Mark, Luke, Romans, 1, 2 Corinth.
Galat. Efes. 1, 2 Tim. Tit. Colos. Filimon, 1, 2 Pet. James, 1, 2, 3 John, Jude,
Barnabas’ Ep. John’s Revelation, Act. Apost., Pastor [Hermas], Actus Paul.,
Revelatio Petri,

9—2

132 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

and are much like those in the Cod. Bezae (see above, p. 101),
which in many points Cod. Claromontanus strongly resembles.
We have noticed many of its peculiarities in the preceding sec-
tion (pp. 30—35), and need not here repeat them. Delta and pi
look even more ancient than in Cod. A: the uncials are simple,
square, regular, and beautiful, of about the size of those in Codd.
CD, and less than in Cod. B. The stichometry forbids our
assigning it to a period earlier than the end of the fifth century
(p. 45), while other circumstances connected with the Latin
version tend to put it a little lower still. The apostrophus is
frequent (p. 43), but there are few stops (p. 46) or abridge-
ments; no breathings or accents are prima manu. Initial letters,
placed at the beginning of books or sections, are plain, and not
much larger than the rest. The comparative correctness of the
Greek text, and its Alexandrine forms, have caused certain
critics to refer us as usual to Egypt for its country: the Latin
text is more faulty, and shews ignorance of the language: yet
what use a Latin version could be except in Africa or Western
Europe it were hard to imagine. This Latin is more indepen-
dent of the Greek, and less altered from it than in Codd. Bezae
or Laudian., where it has little critical value: that of Cod.
Claromont. better represents the African type of the Old Latin.
Of the corrections, a few were made by the original scribe when
revising; a hand of the 7th century went through the whole
(D**); two others follow; then in sharp black uncials of the
ninth or tenth century another made more than two thousand
changes in the text, and added stops and all the breathings and
accents (D***); another 10) ἀκ (among other changes) added to
the Latin subscriptions; D” supplied Rom. i. 27—30 very early ;
D*, a later hand, 1 Cor. xiv. 13—22. 'Tischendorf distinguishes
several others besides these.

E. Cop. SANGERMANENSIS is another Greek-Latin manu-
script, and takes its name from the Abbey of St Germain des
Prez near Paris. Towards the end of the last century the Abbey
(which at the Revolution had been turned into a saltpetre
manufactory) was burnt down, and many of its books Jost. In
1805 Matthaci found this copy, as might have been anticipated,
at St Petersburg, where it is now deposited. The volume is a
large 4to, the Latin and Greek in parallel columns on the same
page, the Greek standing to the left; its uncials are coarse, large

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 153

and thick, not unlike those in Cod. E of the Acts, but of later
shape, with breathings and accents prima@ manu, of about the
tenth century’. Mill obtained some extracts from it, and noted
its obvious connection with Cod. Claromontanus: Wetstein
thoroughly collated it; and not only he but Sabatier and Gries-
bach perceived that it was, at least in the Greek, nothing better
then a mere transcript of Cod. Claromontanus, made by some

Muralt’ s endeavours to shake this conclusion have τ natieie
better judges; indeed the facts are too numerous and too plain
to be resisted. Thus, while in Rom. iv. 25, Cod. D reads &-
καίωσιν (accentuated δικαίωσιν by D***), in which De: changes
ν into νην, the writer of Cod. E adopts δικαίωσινην with its
monstrous accent: in 1 Cor. xv. 5 Cod. D reads peta tavta
τοις evdexa, D*** cita τοῖς δώδεκα (observe again the accents),
out of which Cod. E makes up peta taveita τοῖς dwevdexa.
The Latin version is also borrowed from Cod. D, but is more
mixed, and may be of some critical use: the Greek is mani-
festly worthless, and should long since have been removed from
the list of authorities. This copy is defective, Rom. viii. 21—
33; x1. 15—25; 1 Tim. i. 1—vi. 15; Hebr. xii. 8—xiii. 25.

Ἐπ Cop. Costin. 1 (see p. 105).

F. Cop. AuGiensis in the Library of Trinity College,
Cambridge (B. 17. 1), is another Greek-Latin manuscript on
196 leaves of good vellum 4to (the signatures proving that
seven more are lost), 9 inches by 74, with the two languages
in parallel columns of 28 lines on each page, the Greek
being always inside, the Latin next the edge of the book.
It is called from the monastery of Augia Dives or Major (Rei-
chenau, or rich meadow), on a fertile island in the lower part of
Lake Constance, to which it long appertained, and where it
may even have been written, a thousand years since. By
notices at the beginning and ‘end we can trace it through the
hands of G. M. Wepfer of Schaffhausen and of L. Ch. “Mieg,
who covered many of its pages with Latin notes ἘΣ
scrawled, but allowed Wetstein to examine it. In 1718 Bentley
was induced by Wetstein to buy it at Heidelberg for 250 Dutch

1 Facsimiles of this manuscript are given by Semler in his edition of Wetstein’s
Prolegomena (1764, Nos. 8, 9). Blanchini’s estimate of its age (Hvangeliarum
Quadruplex, Tom. τι. fol. 591. 2), the 7th century, is certainly too high,

134 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

florins, and both he and Wetstein collated the Greek portion, the
latter carelessly, but Bentley somewhat more fully in the margin
of a Greek Testament (Oxon. 1675), yet preserved in Trinity
College (B. 17. 8). Tischendorf in 1842, Tregelles in 1845, re-
examined the book (which had been placed where it now is on
the death of Bentley’s nephew in 1787), and drew attention to
the Latin version: in 1859 Scrivener published an edition of
the Codex in common type, with Prolegomena and a photo-
graph of one page (1 Tim. ii. 14—iv. 5). The Epistles of
St Paul are defective in Rom. 1. 1—iii. 19; and the Greek only
in 1 Cor. 111. 8—16; vi. 7—14; Col. ii. 1—8; Philem. 21—25;
in which four places the Latin stands in its own column with no
Greek over-against it. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the
Greek being quite lost, the Latin occupies both columns: this
Epistle alone has an Argument, almost verbatim the same as we
read in the great Cod. Amiatinus of the Vulgate. At the end
of the Epistle, and on the same page (fol. 139, verso) com-
mences a kind of Postscript (having little connection with the
sacred text), the larger portion of which is met with under the
title of “ Dicta Abbatis Pinophi,” in the works of Rabanus
Maurus, Archbishop of Mayence, who died in A.p. 856; from
which circumstance the Cod. Augiensis has been referred to the
ninth century. Paleographical arguments also would lead us
to the same conclusion, ‘The Latin version (a modification of
the Vulgate in its purest form, though somewhat tampered with
in parts to make it suit the Greek text) is written in the cursive
minuscule character common in the age of Charlemagne. The
Greek must have been taken from an archetype with the words
continuously written; for not only are they miserably divided
by the unlearned German! scribe, but his design (not always
acted upon) was to put a single middle point at the end of each
word, The Latin is exquisitely written, the Greek uncials are
neat, but evidently the work of an unpractised hand, which
soon changes from weariness. The shapes of eta, theta, pi, and
other testing letters are such as we might have expected from
the date; some others have an older look. Contrary to the
more ancient custom, capitals, small but numerous, occur in the
middle of the lines in both languages. Of the ordinary breath-

1 He betrays his nationality by placing “ waltet” primd manu over ἐξουσιάζει,
1 Cor. vii. 4.

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 135

ings’ and accents there are no traces. Here and there we mect
with a straight line, inclined between the horizontal and the acute
accent, placed over an initial vowel, usually when it should be
aspirated, but not always (e.g. ἰδίον 1 Cor. vi. 18). Over ¢ and
v double or single points, or a comma, are frequently placed,
especially if they begin a syllable, and occasionally a large
comma or kind of circumflex over ὁ, εὖ and some other vowels
or diphthongs. The arrangement of the Greek forbids punc-
tuation there; in the Latin we find the single middle point
as a colon, or after an abridgement, the semi-colon (;) some-
times, the note of interrogation (?) when needed. Besides the
universal forms of abridgement (see p. 43), « and 8 are fre-
quent in the Greek, but no others: in the Latin the abbre-
viations are numerous, and some of them unusual: Scrivener
(Cod. Augiensis Proleg. pp. xxxi—ii) has drawn up a full list
of them. This copy abounds as much as any with real varia-
tions from the common text, and with numberless errors of
the pen, itacisms of vowels, and permutations of consonants.
It exhibits many corrections, a few prima manu, some unfor-
tunately very recent, but by far the greater number in a hand
little later than the original writer’s, which has also inserted
over the Greek in 106 places, Latin renderings differing from
those in the parallel column, but which in 86 of these 106
instances agree with the Latin of the sister manuscript

G. Cop. BorrNertAnus, so called from a former pos-
sessor, but now in the Royal Library at Dresden. In the
16th century it belonged to Paul Junius of Leyden: it was
bought dear at the book-sale of Peter Francius, Professor at
Amsterdam, in 1705, by Οὐ. 1΄, Boerner, a Professor at Leipsic,
who lent it to Kuster to enrich his edition of Mill (1711), and
subsequently to Bentley. The latter so earnestly wished to
purchase it as a companion to Cod. F’, that though he received
it in 1719, it could not be recovered from him for five years,
during which he was constantly offering high sums for it’:

1 In 1 Tim. iv. 2 the Latin h is inserted secundd manu before ὑποκρισι.

2 Boerner’s son tells the tale 30 years afterwards with amusing querulousness
in his Catalogus Bibl. Boern. Lips. 1754, p. 6, cited by Matthaei Cod. Boern.
p. xviii. But there must have been some misunderstanding on both sides, for it
appears from a manuscript note in his copy of the Oxford Ν, T. of 1675 (Trin,
Coll. B. 17. 8), that Bentley considered Cod. G his own property; since after

136 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

a copy, but not in Bentley’s hand, had been already made
(Trin. Coll. B. 17. 2). Cod. G was published in full by
Matthaei in 1791, in common type, with two facsimile pages ;
his edition is believed to be very accurate; Anger, Tischendorf,
Tregelles, Béttiger and others who have examined it have only
expressly indicated two errors’. Rettig has abundantly proved
that, as it is exactly of the same size, so it once formed part of
the same volume with Cod. A (see p. 122 and note): they
must date towards the end of the ninth century, and may very
possibly have been written in the monastery of St Gall (where
A still remains) by some of the Irish monks who flocked to
those parts. That Cod. G has been in such hands appears
from some very curious Irish lines at the foot of one of Mat-
thaei’s plates (fol. 23), which after having long perplexed
learned men, have recently been translated by Dr Reeves, the
eminent Celtic scholar*. All that we have said respecting the
form of Cod. A applies to this portion of it: the Latin version
(a specimen of the Old Latin, but as in Codd. Bezae and Laudi-
anus much changed to suit the Greek) is cursive and inter-
linear; the Greek uncials coarse and peculiar; the punctuation

describing Cod. F before the Epistle to the Romans as his own, and as com-
mencing at Rom. 111. 19, he adds ‘‘ Variz lectiones ex altero nostro MSto, ejusdem
yveteris exemplaris apographo.”

1 yiz. werpous for μερους, Eph. iv. 16; εσκοτισμενος for -μενοι, iv. 18.

2 Dr Reeves’s translation of these verses appears in the Irish Archxological
Journal for September 1848, but Dr Todd, the learned Senior Fellow and Libra-
rian of Trinity College, Dublin, has favoured us with the following revision of
Dr Reeves’s translation of these two stanzas: the second and fourth lines of each
stanza rhyme,

Téicht do réim [téicht do réim] To go to Rome, to go to Rome,

M6r saido beci torbai Much of trouble, little of profit,

Tori chondaigi hifoss The King thou seekest here,

Manimbera latt ni fogbai If thou bring Him not with thee thou
findest not.

Mér bais mér baile Great folly, great madness,

Mor coll ceilla mér mire ~ Great ruin of sense, great insanity,

Olais airchenn teicht déecaib Since thou hast set out for the sake of
going to death,

Beith 16 étoil maic Maire. That thou shouldst be in disobedience to

the Son of Mary.

In 1. 3 πὶ (written in error) is afterwards erased before hifoss. The second stanza
intimates that as the pilgrimage to Rome is at the risk of life, it is folly not to be
at peace with Christ before we set out.

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 137

chiefly a stop at the end of words, which have no breathings
or accents. Its affinity to the Cod. Augiensis has no parallel
in this branch of literature. Scrivener has noted all the differ-
ences between them at the foot of each page in his edition of
Cod. F: they amount to but 1982 places, whereof 577 are mere
blunders of the scribe, 968 changes of vowéts or itacisms, 166
interchanges of consonants, 71 grammatical or orthographical
forms, the remaining 200 are real various readings, 32 of them
relating to the article. While in Cod. F (whose first seven
leaves are lost) the text commences at Rom. ii. 19, wo reyes,
this portion is found in Cod. G, except Rom. 1. 1—5; ii. 16
—25. All the other lacunae of Cod. F occur also in Cod. G,

which ends at Philem. 20 ἐν ypw: there is no Latin version

to supply these gaps in Cod. G, but a blank space is always
left sufficient to contain what is missing. At the end of

laudicenses incipit epistola
Philemon G writes frees λαουδακησασ apyeTat επιστολη, but

neither that writing (which would indeed have been a great
curiosity), nor the Epistle to the Hebrews, follows. It is quite
plain that one of these manuscripts was not copied immediately
from the other, for while they often accord even in the
strangest errors of the pen that men unskilled in Greek could
fall into, their division of the Greek words, though equally
false and absurd, is often quite different: it results therefore
that they are independent transcripts of the same venerable
archetype (probably some centuries older than themselves)
which was written without any division between the words.
From the form of the letters and other circumstances Cod. F
may be deemed somewhat but not much the older; its cor-
rector secund@ manu evidently had both the Greek and the
Latin (p. 195) of Cod. G before him, and Rabanus, in whose
works the Dicta Pinophi are preserved (p. 134), was the great
antagonist of Godeschalk, on whom the annotator of Codd. AG
bears so hard. Cod. G is in 4to, of 99 leaves, with 21 lines
in each. The line indicating breathing (if such be its use)
‘and the mark > to fill up spaces (p. 44), are more frequent
in it than in F.

H. Cop. Corstin. 202 is a very precious fragment of 14
leaves, 12 of which are in the Imperial Library at Paris, two
having found their way to St Petersburg after the hasty removal
of the manuscripts from the Abbey of St Germain de Prez, when

138 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

Cod. E disappeared (above p. 132). The leaves at Paris con-
tain 1 Cor. x. 22—29; xi. 9—416; 1 Tim. 1]. 7—13; Tit. i. 1—
3; 1.15—ii. 5; iii. 13—15; Hebr. 11. 11—16; i. 13—18;
iv. 12—15; those at St Petersburg Gal. 1. 4—10; τι. 9—14;
in all 56 verses. They are in 4to, with large square uncials of
about 16 lines oma page, and date from the 6th century.
Breathings and accents are added by a later hand, which re-
touched this copy (see Sylvestre, Paléogr. Univ. Nos. 63, 64, and
above, p. 23). These leaves, which comprise one of our best autho-
rities for stichometrical writing (p. 46), were used in 1218 to bind
another book on Mount Athos, and thence came into the library
of Coislin, Bishop of Metz. Montfaucon has published Cod.
H in his Bibliotheca Coisliniana, but Tischendorf, who has
transcribed it, promises a fuller and more accurate edition. ‘The
subscriptions, which appear due to Euthalius of Sulci'’, written
in vermilion, are not retouched, and consequently have neither
spirits nor accents. Besides arguments to the Epistles we copy
the following final subscription from Tischendorf (N.'T. 1859, p.
clxxxix): ἔγραψα καὶ ἐξεθέμην κατὰ δύναμιν στειχηρὸν' τόδε
τὸ τεύχος παύλου τοῦ ἀποστόλου πρὸς ἐγγραμμὸν καὶ εὐκα-
τάλημπτον ἀνάγνωσιν. τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἀδελφῶν: παρῶν ἀπάν-
των τόλμης συγγνώμην αἰτῶ. εὐχὴ TH ὑπὲρ ἐμῶν: τὴν συνπε-
ριφορὰν κομιζόμενος" ἀντεβλήθη δὲ ἡ βιβλος: πρὸς τὸ ἐν και-
σαρία ἀντίγραφον τῆς βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ ἁγίου παμφίλου χειρὶ
γεγραμμένον αὐτοῦ (see above p. 47).

I. Cop. Tiscuenporr. LH, at St Petersburg (see p. 107).

K. Cop. Mosquensis (see p. 180). L. Cop. ANGELICUS
at Rome (see p. 129).

M. Copex Ruse is peculiar for the beautifully bright red
colour of the ink’, the elegance of the small uncial characters,
and the excellency and critical value of the text. Two folio

1 In reference to what was said above, p. 53, note 1, it is only fair to state
that Euthalius is called ’"Ealoxoros Οούλκης (or ᾿Εούλκης once in one manuscript)
in the titles to his works as edited by L. A. Zacagni (Collectanea Monument.
Veter. Eccles. Grac. ac Latin. Romae 1698, p. 402). That Euthalius should
write in Greek is easily accounted for by his previous connection with Egypt,
and it is plain that there was but one town of Sulci, Sardinia being some-
times reckoned a portion of the Roman diocese, sometimes of the Province of
Mauritania Secunda (Bingham’s Antiquities, Vol. 111. pp. 152, 201, edition of
1838). Zacagni’s improbable guess of Ψέλχη near Syene must certainly be re-

jected, as no place of that name appears in any list of Episcopal sees.
2 Scholz also describes 196, 362, 366 of the Gospels as written in red ink,

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 139

leaves containing Hebr. i. 1—iv. 3; xii. 20—xiii. 25, once be-
longed to Uffenbach, then to J. C. Wolff, who bequeathed
them to the Public Library (Johanneum) of Hamburgh (see
Cod. H. of the Gospels, p. 106). To the same manuscript
belong fragments of two leaves used in binding Cod. Harleian.
5613 in the British Museum, and seen at once by Griesbach,
who first collated them (Symbol. Crit. Tom. τι. p. 162 &c.), to be
portions of the Hamburgh fragment. Each page in both con-
tains two columns, of 45 lines each in the Hamburgh, of 38
in the London leaves. The latter comprise 1 Cor. xv. 52—2
Cor. 1. 15; 2 Cor. x. 13—xii. 5; reckoning both fragments 196
verses in all. Henke in 1800 edited the Hamburgh portion,
Tregelles collated it twice, and Tischendorf in 1855 published
the text of both in full in his Anecdota Sacra et Profana. The
letters are a little unusual in form, perhaps about the tenth cen-
tury in date ; but though sometimes joined in the same word, can
hardly be called semdcursive. Our facsimile (Plate x1, No. 38) is
from the London fragment: the graceful, though peculiar shapes,
both of alpha and mu (see p. 33) closely resemble those in some
writing of about the same age, added to the venerable Leyden
Octateuch, on a page just published in facsimile by Tischen-
dorf (Monum. sacr. ined. Vol. 111). Accents and breathings are
given pretty correctly and constantly: dota ascript occurs three
times (2 Cor. i. 1; 4; Hebr. xiii. 21)!; only 10 ctactsms occur
and ν ἐφελκυστικὸν (as it is called) is rare. The usual stop is the
single point in its three positions, with a change in power, as in
Cod. E of the Gospels. The interrogative (;) occurs once (Hebr.
ili. 17), and > is often repeated to fill up space (see p. 44), or, in
a smaller shape, to mark quotations. After the name of each of
the Epistles (2 Cor. and Hebr.) in their titles we read εκτεθείσα
ὡς ev πίνακι, which Tischendorf thus explains; that whereas it
was customary to prefix an argument to each epistle, these
words, originally employed to introduce the argument, were
retained even when the argument was omitted. Henke’s account

1 Griesbach (Symbol. Critic. Vol. 11. p. 166) says that in the Harleian fragment
“Tota bis tantum aut ter subscribitur, semel postscribitur, plerumque omittitur,”
overlooking the second postscript. Scrivener repeats this statement about ¢ sub-
script (Cod. Augiens. Introd. p. xxii), believing he had verified it: but Tischendorf
cannot see the subscripts, nor can Scrivener on again consulting Harl. 5613 for the
purpose, Tregelles too says, ‘‘I have not seen a subscribed iota in any uncial
document” (Printed Text, p. 158, note).

140 ON THE UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS

of the expression looks a little less forced, that this manuscript
was set forth ὡς ev πίνακι, that is, in vermillion, after the
pattern of Imperial letters patent.

Ν᾿, FraqgmMenta MosqueEnsiA used as early as A.D. 975
in binding a volume of Gregory Nazianzen now at Moscow (S.
Synodi 61). Matthaei describes them on Hebr. x. 1: they only
contain the 12 verses Hebr. x. 1—3; 3—7; 32—34; 35—38.
These very ancient leaves may possibly be as old as the sixth
century, for their letters resemble in shape those in Cod. H
which the later hand has so coarsely renewed; but are more
probably a little later.

Manuscripts of the Apocalypse.

ἐξ. CopEx Srvarticus (described above, pp. 76—79). A.
CopEX ALEXANDRINUS (described above, pp. 79—84).

B. Copex VatTicanus 2066 (formerly 105 in the Library
of the Basilian monks in the city) was judiciously substituted
by Wetstein for the modern portion of the great Vatican MS.,
which is yet uncollated. It is an uncial copy of about the
beginning of the eighth century, and the volume also contains
in the same hand homilies of Basil the Great and Gregory of
Nyssa, &c. It was first known from a notice and facsimile in
Blanchini’s Evangeliarium Quadruplex (1748), Vol. 11. p. 525:
Wetstein was promised a collation of it by Cardinal Quirini, who
seems to have met with unexpected hindrances, as the papers
only arrived after the text of the New Testament was printed,
and proved very loose and defective. When Tischendorf was at
Rome in 1843, though forbidden to collate it afresh (in conse-
quence, as we now know, of its having been already printed
in Mai’s unpublished volumes of the Codex Vaticanus), he was
permitted to make a facsimile of a few verses, and while thus
employed he so far contrived to elude the watchful custodian, as
to compare the whole manuscript with a modern Greek Testa-
ment. ‘he result was given in his Monwmenta sacra inedita
(1846) pp. 407—432, with a good facsimile; but (as was natu-
ral under the unpromising circumstances) Tregelles in 1845 was
able to observe several points which he had overlooked, and
more have come to light since Mai’s edition has appeared:

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 141

on the other hand, the errors of Mai detected by Tischendorf
(NV. 7. 7th edit. Proleg. p. cxcii) are yet more numerous, so that
a renewed examination of this valuable document is even now
desirable.

This Codex is now known to contain the whole of the
Apocalypse, a fact which the poor collation that Wetstein
managed to procure had rendered doubtful. It is rather an
octavo than a folio or quarto; the uncials being of a peculiar
kind, simple and unornamented, leaning a little to the right:
. they hold a sort of middle place between square and oblong
characters. The shape of beta is peculiar, the two loops to
the right nowhere touching each other, and pst has degenerated
into the form of a cross (see Plate 111, No. 7): delta, theta, xi
are also of the latest uncial fashion. ‘The breathings and ac-
cents are primdé manu, and pretty correct; the rule of the
grammarians respecting the change of power of the single point
in punctuation according to its change of position (above, p. 42)
is now regularly observed. The scarcity of old copies of the
Apocalypse renders this uncial of considerable importance, and
it much confirms the readings of the older codices AC.

C. Coprex Epurarmi (described above pp. 94—96).

Section III.
On the Cursive Manuscripts of the Greek Testament.

THE later manuscripts of the Greek Testament, written in
cursive characters from the tenth down to the fifteenth century
or later, are too numerous to be minutely described in an
elementary work like the present. We shall therefore speak of
them with all possible brevity, dwelling only on a few which
present points of especial interest, and employing certain abridge-
ments, a list of which we subjoin for the reader’s convenience.

Abbreviations used in the following Catalogue.

Am. denotes that a manuscript has the Ammonian sections in
the margin. _ Hus. that under them stand the Eusebian canons,
Eus.t. that a table of these canons is prefixed to the Gospels, and
if the Epistle to Carpian precede, Carp. stands before Hus. t. κεφ.
indicates that the numbers of the κεφάλαια majora stand in the margin.
tity. that. the τίτλοι are given at the head or foot of the page.
κεφ. t. that tables of the κεφάλαια are prefixed to each book. ect.
that the book is adapted for Church-reading by notices of the proper
lessons, feasts &c. in the margin, or above, or below, or interspersed
with the text. men. that a menology, or calendar of Saints’ Days, is
found at the beginning or end of the book. syn. that a calendar of
the daily lessons throughout the year is given. mut. that the copy
described is mutilated. pict. that it is illuminated with pictures &c.
prol. that it contains prologues or ὑποθέσεις before the several books.
The books are all written on parchment or vellum, unless chart.
(paper) be expressly named.

The numerals within brackets which immediately follow ἢ
the name of each manuscript represent the date, whether fixed by
a subscription in the book itself, or approximated to by other means:
e.g. [xu] indicates a book of the 13th century. The names within
parentheses indicate the collators of each manuscript, and if it has
been satisfactorily examined, an asterisk is prefixed to the number
by which it is known (see p. 67). If the copy contain other portions
of the New Testament, its notation in those portions is always given,

Manuscripts of the Gospels.

*1, (Act. 1, Paul. 1). Codex Basilensis K 1. 3[x] 8°, prol., syn.,
pict. Among the illuminations are what appear to be pictures of
the Emperor Leo the Wise [886—911] and his son Constantine
Porphyrogenitus, Its later history is the same as that of Cod. E

THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 143

of the Gospels (see pp. 103—4): it was known to Erasmus, who
but little used or valued it: it was borrowed by Reuchlin, a few
extracts given by Bengel (Bas. y), collated by Wetstein, and recently
by C. L. Roth and Tregelles, who have compared their results. Our
facsimile (No. 23) gives an excellent notion of the elegant and minute
style of writing, which is fully furnished with breathings, accents
and « ascript: there are 38 lines in each page. In the Gospels the
text is very remarkable, adhering pretty closely to the uncials Codd.
BL and others of that class.

2. Cod. Basil. B νι. 25 [xv.] is the inferior manuscript chiefly
used by Erasmus for his first edition of the N.T., with press cor-
rections in his hand. The monks at Basle had bought it for two
Rhenish florins; and dear enough, in Michelis’ judgment. (Bengel,
Bas. β, Wetstein).

3. (Act. 3, Paul. 3). Cod. Corsendonck. [x11] 4°, once belonging
to a convent at Corsendonck near Turnhout, now in the Imperial
Library at Vienna (Forlos. 15, Kollar. 5): syn., Hus. t., prol., pict.
It was lent to Erasmus for his second edition in 1519, as he testifies
on the first leaf (Alter).

4, Cod. Regius 84 [x11] 4°, in the Imperial Library at Paris (de-
signated RI by Tischendorf), was rightly recognised by Lelong as
Robert Stephens’ y’ (see Chap. v.) Mill notices its affinity to the
Latin versions and the Complutensian edition (Prol. VY. 7. § 1161);
mut. in Matth. ii. 9—20; John i. 49—iii. 11; 49 verses: it contains
syn. and extracts from some Fathers (Scholz).

5. (Act. 5, Paul. 5). Regius 106 [x1] is Stephens’ 8’: 4°, prol.
(Wetstein, Scholz).

6. (Act. 6, Paul. 6). Regius 112 [x1] is Stephens’ ε΄; in text it
much resembles Codd. 4; 5. 12°, syn. with St Chrysostom’s Liturgy,
prol., κεφ. ¢ (Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz).

τ ᾿ A ταν 1 [x1] is Stephens’ ς΄, 4°, prol., syn., Hus. t., pict.
etst., Scholz).

8. Regius 49 [x1] fol., seems to be Stephens’ ζ΄: Hus. t., syn.
. (Wetst., Scholz).
( ,

9. Regius 83 [dated a.p. 1168, when “ Manuel Porphyrogenitus
was ruler of Constantinople, Amauri of Jerusalem, William II. of
Sicily”] 4°, is probably Stephens’ 1B’, Fus. t., syn. It once belonged to
Peter Stella (Kuster’s Paris 3, Scholz).

10. Regius 91 [ΧΠῚ or later] 4°, given in 1439 to a library
of Canons Regular at Verona by Dorotheus Archbishop of Mitylene,
when he came to the Council of Florence. If this be Kuster’s Paris
1 he says that it came “ex Bibliotheca Telleriano-Rhemensi ;”
Scholz, that it was “antea Joannis Huraultii Boistallerii;’ some
confusion seems to be attached to this copy. Syn. Hus., t. (Wet-
stein, Griesbach, Scholz).

11. Regius 121—2 [xm or earlier] in two small 8° volumes,
neatly written. Hus. ¢ It also once belonged to Teller (Kuster’s
Paris 4, Scholz).

144 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS

12. In Wetstein’s notation stands for a medley of readings
from the manuscripts noted below as 119, 120, and another un-
known: but Scholz’s Cod. 12. is Regius 230 [x1] 4°, syn., Zus. t., prol.,
pict. and a commentary. The next manuscript is the most important
since Cod. 1.

13. Regius 50 [xu] 4°, is Kuster’s Paris 6, who says that it
supplied him with more various readings than all the rest of his
Paris manuscripts put together. This, like Codd. 10, 11 once belonged
to Teller. It is not correctly written, and still needs careful collation.
Syn., mut. in Matth. i. 1—ii. 21; xxvi. 33—53; xxvii. 26—xxviil.
10; Mark i. 2—45; Jo. xxi. 2—25; 181 verses (Kuster, Wetstein,
Griesbach, Begtrup in 1797).

14. Regius 70 [a.p. 964, the earliest dated cursive: see p. 36,
note 2] 8°, once Cardinal Mazarin’s; was Kuster’s Paris 7. <A jfac-
simile of this beautiful copy, with round conjoined minuscule letters,
regular breathings and accents is given in the Paléographie Univer-
selle, No. 78. Κεφ. ¢., pict. Paschal. Canon, Carp., Hus. t. (Kuster,
Scholz).

15. Regius 64 [x] 4°, is Kuster’s Paris 8. Zus. t., syn., pict. very
neat (Kuster, Scholz). ;

16. Regius 54 [xiv] fol., once belonged to the Medici; it has a
Latin version in parts; mut. Mark xvi. 6—20. us. t., syn., pict.
(Wetstein, Scholz).

17. Regius 55 [xvi] fol., has the Latin Vulgate version: it was
neatly written in France by George Hermonymus the Spartan, who
settled at Paris in 1472, and became the Greek teacher of Budzus
and Reuchlin: it once belonged to Cardinal Bourbon. Syn., pict.
(Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz).

18. (Act. 113, Paul. 132, Apoc. 51). Regius 47, bought 1687,
but written at Constantinople a.p. 1364 by Nicephorus Cannavus.
It is one of the few copies of the whole New Testament (see p. 61),
and once belonged to the monastery τοῦ ζωοδότου χριστοῦ at My-
zithra (Misitra?). Prol., syn. psalms, hymns (Scholz).

19. Regius 189 [x11] or Wetstein’s 1869, once belonged to the
Medici, with a catena to John, and scholia to the other Gospels
(Scholz).

20. Regius 188 [x11], brought from the East in 1669. It is care-
lessly written, and contains catenz, commentaries and other trea-
tises enumerated by Scholz, who collated most of it. At the end
of Mark, Luke and John ‘‘dicitur etiam hoc evangelium ex accu-
ratis codicibus esse exscriptum, nec non collatum” (Scholz) <A
second hand has been busy here.

21. Regius 68 [x] 4°, pict., with syn. on paper in a later hand
(Scholz).

22. Regius 72, once Colbert. 2467 [x1] 4°, very imperfectly
known, but contains remarkable readings. J/ut. Matth. i. 1—ii. 2
(v. 25 Griesb.) ; John xiv. 22—xvi. 27; 90 verses, Lect. added in
16th century (Wetstein, Scholz).

OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 145

23. Regius 77, Colbert. 3947 [x1] 4°, with the Latin Vulgate
version down to Luke iv. 18. Mut. Matth. 1. 1—17; Luke xxiv. 46
—Jo. ii, 20; xxi. 24, 25; 96 verses (Scholz).

24. Regius 178, Colbert. 4112 [x1] fol., with a commentary, and
also syn. but in a later hand. JZut. Matth. xxvii. 20—Mark iv. 22;
186 verses (Griesb., Scholz).

25. Regius 191, Colbert. 2259 [x] fol., with scholia. Very im-
perfect, wanting about 715 verses, viz. Matth. xxiii. 1—xxv. 42;
Mark i. 1—vii. 36; Luke viii. 31—41; ix. 44—54; x. 39—xi. 4;
John xiii. 19?—xxi. 25 (Griesbach, Scholz).

26. Regius 78, Colbert. 4078 [x1]4°, neatly and correctly writ-
ten by Paul a priest. Comment., Hus. ¢. (Wetstein, Scholz).

27. Regius 115, Colbert. 6043 [x1] 8°, is Mill’s Colb.1. That
critic procured Larroque’s collation of Codd. 27—33 (a very imperfect
one) for his edition of the New Testament. From Jo, xvii. 3 the
text is supplied, cotton chart. [xiv]. Syn., pict. Extensively altered
by a later hand (Wetstein, Scholz).

28. Regius 379, Colbert. 4705 [xr?] 4°, is Mill’s Colb. 2, most
carelessly written by an ignorant scribe; it often resembles Cod.
D, but has many unique readings and interpolations. Syn., mu. in
334 verses, viz. Matth. vii. 17 —ix. 12; xiv. 33—xvi. 10; xxvi. 70—
xxvii. 48; Luke xx. 19—xxii. 46; John xii. 40—xiii. 1; xv. 24—
xvi. 12; xviii. 16—28; xx. 20—xxi. 5; 18—25 (Scholz).

29. Regius 89, Colbert. 6066 [x11] 4°, is Mill’s Colb. 3, cor-
rectly written by a Latin scribe, with very many peculiar correc-
tions by a later hand. Lost leaves in the three later Gospels are sup-
plied [xv]. Scholia, Hus. ¢., mut. Matth. i—xv. Mill compares its
text with that of Cod. 71 infra (Scholz).

30. Regius 100, Colbert. 4444 [xv1] 4°, chart., is Mill’s Colb. 4,
containing all the Gospels, by the writer of Cod. 17, whose text it
much resembles (Scholz).

31. Regius 94, Colbert. 6083 [xu] 4°, is also Mill’s Colb. 4,
but contains all the Gospels with prayers and pict. This copy has
many erasures (Scholz).

32. Regius 116, Colbert. 6551 [x11] 8°, ect., is Mill’s Colb. 5, It
begins Matth. x. 22. Mut. Matth. xxiv. 15—30; Luke xxii. 35—
Jo. iv. 20 (Scholz). Mill misrepresented the contents of Codd. 30—
32, through supposing that they contained no more than the small
portions which were collated for his use.

*33. (Act. 13, Paul. 17). Regius 14, Colbert. 2844 [x1] fol., is
Mill’s Colb. 8, containing some of the Prophets and all the New
Testament except the Apocalypse. In text it resembles Codd. BDL
more than any other cursive manuscript, and whatever may be
thought of the character of its readings, they deserve the utmost
attention. After Larroque, Wetstein, Griesbach, Begtrup and Scholz,
it was most laboriously collated by Tregelles in 1850. From his
beautiful tracing our facsimile (No. 34) of this manuscript is de-
rived. There are 42 long lines in each page, ina fine round hand, the
accents being sometimes neglected, and efa unusually like our English

140 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS

letter h. The ends of the leaves are much damaged, and greatly mis-
placed by the binder; so that the Gospels now stand last, though on
comparing the style of handwriting (which undergoes a gradual
change throughout the volume) at their beginning and end with that
in the Prophets which stand first, and the Epistles that should follow
them, it is plain that they originally occupied their usual place.
The ink too, by reason of the damp, has often left its proper page
blank, so that the writing can only be read set off on the opposite
page, especially in the Acts. Hence it is no wonder that Tregelles
should say that of all the manuscripts he has collated “ none has ever
been so wearisome to the eyes, and exhaustive of every faculty of
attention.” (Account of the Printed Account, p. 162).

The next eight copies, like Cod. H. of St Paul, belonged to that
noble collection made by the Chancellor Seguier, and on his death in
1672 bequeathed to Coislin, Bishop of Metz. Montfaucon has de-
scribed them in his ‘“ Bibliotheca Coisliniana,” fol. 1715, and all were
slightly collated by Wetstein and Scholz.

34, Cod. Coislin. 195 [xr] 4°, elegantly written on Mount Athos,
has a catena, prol., pict.

35. (Act. 14, Paul. 18, Apoc. 17). Coislin. 199 [x1] fol., con-

tains the whole New Testament, with many corrections.

36. Coislin. 20 [x1], Hus. t., prol., with a commentary, from the
laura [1. 6. convent, Suicer, Thes. 1760. Tom. τι. 205] of St Athanasius
in Mount Athos,

37. Coislin. 21 [xm] 4°, with short scholia, Zus.t., syn., prol., pict.

38. (Act. 19, Αροο. 23). Coislin. 200 ae 4°, copied by the
Emperor Michael Palaeologus [1259—1282], and by him sent to
St Louis [d. 1270], containing all the N. T. except St Paul’s Epistles,
has been judged by Wetstein to be Stephens’ 6. Pict., mut. 143
verses; Matth. xiv. 15—xv. 30; xx. 14—xxi. 27; Mark xu. 3—
xiii. 4. A facsimile of this beautiful book is given in the Paléo-
graphie Univer. No, 84, where it is erroneously called an Evangelis-
tarium,

39. Coislin. 23 [x1], written by the Patriarch Sergius IT., and
in 1218 at the convent of St Athanasius on Mount Athos, With a
Commentary.

40. Coislin. 22 [x1] 4°, once belonged to the monastery of St

Nicholas σταυρονικήτας, with a Commentary and us. t. Ends at
John xx, 25.

41. Coislin, 24 [x1] 4°, contains Matthew and Mark with a Com-
mentary.

42. Cod. Medicaeus exhibits many readings of the same class as
Codd, 1. 13. 33, but its authority has the less weight, since it has

1 Stephens includes his 0’ among the copies that αὐτοὶ πανταχόθεν συνηθροίσα-
μεν, which might suit the case of Coislin. 200, as St Louis would have brought
or sent it to France. But how can we account for Stephens citing θ΄ repeat-
edly in St Paul which Cois], 200 does not contain, and never in the Apocalypse,
which it does?

OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 147

disappeared under circumstances somewhat suspicious. Bernard com-
municated to Mill these readings, which he had found in the hand of
Peter Pithoeus, a former owner, in the margin of Stephens’ N. T. of
1550: they professed to be extracted from an “exemplar Regium
Medicaeum” (which may be supposed to mean that portion of the
King’s Library which Catherine de Medici brought to France: above,
p. 94), and were inserted under the title of Jed. in Mill’s great
work, though he remarked their resemblance to the text of Cod.
K (Proleg. N. Τὶ § 1462). The braggart Amelotte [1606—78] pro-
fesses to have used the manuscript, about the end of the seventeenth
century, and states that it was in a college at Troyes; but Scholz
could find it neither in that city nor elsewhere.

43. (Act. 54, Paul. 130). Cod. Graec. 4, in the Arsenal of Paris
[x1] 4°, in two volumes; the first containing the Gospels with us. t.,
the second the Acts and Epistles. Perhaps written at Ephesus;
given by P. de Berzi in 1661 to the Oratory of San Maglorian
(Amelotte, Simon, Scholz).

44. Brit. Museum, Addit. 4949 [x1] fol., brought from Mount
Athos by the celebrated Caesar de Missy [1703—75], George III’s
French chaplain, who spent his life in collecting materials for an
edition of the N. T. His collation, most imperfectly given by Wet-
stein, is still preserved with the manuscript. Syn., men., pict., Am.,
Eus., but no κεφ. (Bloomfield, 1860).

45, Cod. Bodleian. Barocc. 31 [xi] 4°, is Mill’s Bodl. 1, a very
neat copy, with Hus. t., κεφ. t., Am., pict., subscriptions, and στίχοι
numbered in Luke (Mill, Griesbach).

46. Bodleian. Baroce. 29 [x1] 4°, Mill’s Bodl. 2, with τὸ νομικὸν
and τὸ κυριακὸν πάσχα, syn., men., Carp., Hus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλοι, pict.,
subscriptions, στίχοι (Mill, Griesbach).

47. Bodleian. Misc. 9 (Auct. Ὁ. 5. 2), [xv] 12°, in a vile hand,
κεφ. ἐ., and much foreign matter, is Mill’s Bodl. 6 and Bodl. 1 of
Walton’s Polyglott (Polyglott, Mill).

48. Bodleian. Misc. 1 (Auct. Ὁ. 2. 17), [xtr] 4°, is Mill’s Bodl. 7,
having scholia in a later hand, pict., Hus. t., subscriptions with ῥήματα
and στίχοι appended (Mill).

49. Bodleian. Roe 1 [x1] 4°, is also Mill’s Roe 1, brought by Sir
T. Roe (see p. 79) from Turkey about 1628; it has Hus. t., xed. t.,
Am., Eus., lect. (Mill).

50. Bodleian. Laud. 33 [x1] 4°, is Mill’s Laud. 1 (see p. 128),
surrounded by a catena, and attended with other matter. It begins
Matth. ix. 35, and ends at Jo. v. 18; besides which it is mutilated
in Matth. xii. 3—24; xxv. 20—31; and Mark xiv. 40—xvi. 20 is by
a later hand. It contains many unusual readings (Mill, Griesbach).

51. (Act. 32, Paul. 38). Bodleian. Laud. 31 [xi] fol., Mill’s
Laud. 2, whose resemblance to the Complutensian text is pointed
out by him (Prol. N. T. § 1437), though, judging from his own
collation of Cod. 51, his statement “per omnia pené respondet” is
rather too strong. See below, Chap. v. Syn., κεφ.) τίτλοι, Am. (not
Eus.), lect., men., prol., and other foreign matter. The present order

10—2

148 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS

of the contents (see p. 62) is Act., Paul., Cath., Evangelia (Mill,
Griesbach), but it ought to be collated afresh.

52. Bodleian. Laud. 3 [dated a.p. 1286] an elegant small 4°,
written by νικητας ὁ μαυρωνης, is Mill’s Laud. 5, with κεφ. t., Am., Lus.,
lect., pict., men., subscriptions (Mill, Griesbach).

53. Bodleian. Selden. 53 [xiv] 4°, is Mill’s Selden 1, who pro-
nounces it much like Stephens’ γ΄ (Cod. 4), having κεφ. t., κεφ. (not
Lus.), and subscriptions (Mill).

54. Bodleian. Selden. 54 [dated a.p, 1338] 4°, Mill’s Seld. 2, has
the text broken up into paragraphs, beginning with red capitals, syz.,.
lect., κεφ. t., Am., but not Lus. (Mill).

55. Bodleian. Selden. 5 [xu] 4°, Mill’s Seld. 3, containing also
Judges vi. 1—24 (Grabe, Prol. V. T. 11. 6), has syn., men., κεφ. t.,
ked., pict., subscriptions with στίχοι (Mill).

56. Lincoln Coll. Oxon. 18 [xv or later] 4°, chart., was presented
about 1502 by Edmund Audley, Bishop of Salisbury: κεφ. t., prol.,
τίτλοι, and paragraphs nwmbered (viz. Matth. 127, Mark 74, Luke 130,
John 67). Walton gives some various readings, but confounds it with
Act. 33, Paul. 39, speaking of them as if one “ vetustissimum exem-
plar.” It has been recently inspected by Dobbin ; (Mill).

δ. (Act. 35, Paul. 41). Magdalen Coll. Oxon., Greek 9 [x11] 4°,
in a small and beautiful hand. J/uwt. Mark 1.1—11; Rom.; 1, 2 Cor.;
Psalms and Hymns follow the Epistles. It has κεφ. t., τίτλοι, lect.
Collated twice by Dr Hammond, the great commentator, whose
papers seem to have been used for Walton’s Polyglott (Magd. 1):
also examined by Dobbin; (Mill).

58. Nov. Coll. Oxon. 68 [xv or later] 4°, is Walton’s and Mill’s
N. 1. This, like Codd. 56—7, has been accurately examined by Dr
Dobbin, for the purpose of his Collation of the Codex Montfortia-
nus (London, 1854), with whose readings Codd. 56, 58 have been
compared in 1922 places. He has undoubtedly proved the close con-
nection subsisting between the three manuscripts (which had been
observed by Mill, Prol. V. 7. § 1388), though pace viri tanti dixerim,
he may not have quite demonstrated that they must be direct
transcripts from each other. Syn., κεφ. t., prol., τίτλοι, with scholia.
The writing is very careless, and those are in error who follow Wal-
ton in stating that it contains the Acts and Epistles (Walton’s Poly-
glott, Mill, Dobbin).

*59. Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, 403 [xm] 4°, an
important copy, “textu notabili,” as Tischendorf states (much like
D. 61. 71), but carelessly written, and exhibiting no less than 81
omissions by ὁμοιοτέλευτον (see p. 9). It was very poorly examined
for Walton’s Polyglott, better though defectively by Mill, seen by
Wetstein in 1716, minutely collated by Scrivener in 1860. It once
belonged to the House of Friars Minor at Oxford, and was given
to Gonville College by Th. Hatcher, M.A. in 1507. It has (what-
ever Walton asserts) τίτλοι, κεῴφ., Am, but not Hus., and exhibits
many and rare compendia scribendi.

OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 149

60. (Apoc. 10). Cambridge Public Library 553 or Dd. 9. 69
[a.D. 1297] 4°, but the Apocalypse later, and has a few scholia from
Arethas about it. This copy is Mill’s Moore 1’, and is still badly
known, Carp., Eus. t., Am. without Hus. c., and is elegantly written
(Mill). The Gospels appear to have been written in the East, the
Apocalypse in the West of Europe.

“61. (Act. 34, Paul. 40, Apoc. 92). Codex Montfortianus at
Trinity College, Dublin, G. 97 [xv or xvi] 8°, so celebrated in the con-
troversy respecting 1 John v. 7. Its last collator, Dr Orlando Dobbin
(see on Cod. 58), has discussed in his Introduction every point of in-
terest connected with it. It contains the whole New Testament,
apparently the work of three or four successive scribes, on 455
paper leaves, only one of them—that on which 1 Jo. v. 7 stands—
being glazed*, as if to protect it from harm. This manuscript
was first heard of between the publication of Erasmus’ second (1519)
and third (1522) editions of his N. T., and after he had publicly
declared, in answer to objectors, that if any Greek manuscript could
be found containing the passage, he would insert it in his revision
of the text; a promise which he fulfilled in 1522. Erasmus de-
scribes his authority as ‘‘ Codex Britannicus,” ‘‘apud Anglos reper-
tus,” and there is the fullest reason to believe that the Cod. Mont-
fortianus is the copy referred to (see below, Chap. 1x). Its earliest
known owner was Froy, a Franciscan friar, then Thomas Clement
[fl. 1569], then William Chark [fl. 1582], then Thomas Montfort,
D.D. of Cambridge, from whom it derives its name, then Archbishop
Ussher, who caused the collation to be made which appears in Wal-
ton’s Polyglott (Matth. i. 1—Act. xxii. 29; Rom. i.), and presented
the manuscript to Trinity College. Dr Barrett appended to his
edition of Cod. Z (see p. 119) a full collation of the parts left un-
touched by his predecessors; but since the work of Ussher’s friends
was known to be very defective, Dobbin has re-collated the whole of
that portion which Barrett left unexamined, comparing the readings
throughout with Codd. 56, 58 of the Gospels, and Cod. 33 of the
Acts. This copy has τίτλοι, Am., and the number of στίχοι noted at
the end of each book, besides which the division by the Latin chap-
ters is employed, a sure proof—if any were needed—of the modern
date of the manuscript. There are many corrections by a more
recent hand, erasures by the pen, &c. It has been supposed that the
Gospels were first written; then the Acts and Epistles (transcribed,
in Dobbin’s judgment, from Cod. 33); the Apocalypse last; having
been added, as Dr Dobbin thinks, from Cod. 69 (see p. 151), when they
were both in Chark’s possession. The text, however, of the Apoca-

1 On the death of Dr John Moore, Bishop of Ely, in 1714, George I. was
induced to buy his books and manuscripts for the Public Library at Cambridge, in
acknowledgment of the attachment of the University to the House of Hanover.
Every one remembers the epigram which this royal gift provoked.

2 «We often hear (said a witty and most Reverend Irish Prelate) that the text
of the Three Heavenly Witnesses is a gloss; and any one that will go into the
College Library may see as much for himself.”

150 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS

lypse is not quite the same in the two codices, nor would it be easy,
without seeing them together, to verify Dobbin’s conjecture, that the
titles to the sacred books, in pale red ink, were added by the same
person in both manuscripts.

62. Cambridge P. L. 2061 or Kk. 5. 35 [xv] 8°, chart., men., lect.,
with the Latin chapters’. This is Walton’s Goog.; it was brought
from the East, and once belonged to Dr Henry Googe, Fellow of
Trinity College. The collations of Cod. 1). 59. 61. 62 made for the
London Polyglott was given to Emmanuel College in 1667, where
they yet remain.

63. Cod. Ussher 1, Trin. Coll. Dublin, A. τ. 8 [x] fol., with a
Commentary. A few extracts were contributed by Henry Dodwell
to Bishop Fell’s N. T. of 1675; Richard Bulkeley loosely collated it
for Mill, Dr Dobbin in 1855 examined St Matthew, and the Rev.
John Twycross, of the Charter House, re-collated the whole manu-
script in 1858.

64. Ussher 2 belonged, like the preceding, to the illustrious Pri-
mate of Ireland, but has been missing from Trin. Coll. Library in
Dublin ever since 1742. It was collated, like Cod. 63, by Dodwell for
Fell, by Bulkeley for Mill, and with their reports we must now be
content. It once belonged to Dr Thomas Goad, and was very neatly,
though incorrectly, written in 8°. As the Emmanuel College copy of
the Epistles (Act. 53, Paul. 30) never contained the Gospels, for which
it is perpetually cited in Walton’s Polyglott as Hm., the strong re-
semblance undoubtedly subsisting between Usser. 2 and Hm. led even
Mill to suspect that they were in fact the same copy. Since both
codices (if they be two) are lost, we have examined both Walton’s
and Mill’s collations with a view to this question. The result is that
they are in numberless instances cited together in support of read-
ings in company with other manuscripts; often with a very few or
even alone (e. g. Mark ii. 2; iv.1; ix. 10; 25; Luke iv. 32; viii. 27;
Jo. iv. 24; v. 7; xvi. 19; xxi. 1). That Usser. 2 and Em. are some-
times alleged separately is easily accounted for by the inveterate
want of accuracy exhibited by all early collators. Since Mill had
access to the papers from which the Polyglott collations were drawn
(Proleg. N. T. § 1505), we need not wonder if he largely adds to
Walton’s quotations from Hm. (6. g. Mark viii. 35; xvi. 10; and many
other places). A real difficulty would arise if Ym. and Usser, 2 were
cited as opposing witnesses; and inasmuch as the only two such
cases we have been able to discover (Jo, vill. 2; xix. 31) may fairly
be imputed to the error of one of the collators, it can hardly be
doubted that the two codices are identical. Marsh’s objections to
this conclusion (Notes to Michaelis, Vol. τι. pp. 800—802 and Ad-
denda) seem by no means decisive.

65. Cod. Harleian. 5776, in the British Museum [x11] 4°, is Mill’s
Cov. 1, brought from the East in 1677 with four other manuscripts of

2 Such is Walton’s meaning when, to Mill’s sore perplexity (N. 7. Proleg.
§ 1377), he writes ‘‘habet distinctionem ordinariorum κεφαλαίων, sed non que
Eusebianis canonibus sunt accommodata.”

OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 151

the Greek Testament by Dr John Covell [1637—1722], once English
Chaplain at Constantinople, afterwards Master of Christ’s College,
Cambridge. Carp., Hus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλ., Am., Bus., στίχοι, subscrip-
tions (Mill). This book was presented to Covell in 1674 by Daniel,
Bishop of Proconesus. The last verse is supplied by a late hand, the
concluding leaf being lost.

66. Cod. Galei Londinensis [no date assigned] 8°, once belonged
to Th. Gale, High Master of St Paul’s School, but is now lost.
Syn., Carp. (followed by five vacant leaves for Hus. t.), lect., scholia.
Known only to (Mill).

67. Bodleian. Miscell. 76 [x1] 4°, is Mill’s Hunt. 2, brought from
the East by Dr Robert Huntington. Jfut. Jo. vi. 64—xxi. 25. Κεφ.
t., Hus. ¢., pict., lect. (Mill).

68. Lincoln. Coll. Oxon. 17 [x1] 8°, is Mill’s Wheel. 1, brought
from the East, with two other copies, by George Wheeler, Canon of
Durham. Carp., Lus. t., syn., κεφ. t., κεφ. in margin, Am., but not
us. (Mill). The next copy is, after Codd. 1. 33, the most important
of all the cursives.

*69. (Act. 31, Paul. 37, Apoc. 14). Codex Leicestrensis [xiv]
fol., like Cod. 206, on parchment and paper (see p. 21), is now in
the library of the Town Council of Leicester. It contains the whole
New Testament, except Matth. i. 1—xviii. 15; Act. x. 45—xiv. 17;
Jud. 7—25; Apoc. xviii. 7—xxii. 21, but with fragments down to
xix. 10. It is written with a reed (see p. 24) on 212 complete leaves
of 38 lines in a page, in the coarse and strange hand our facsimile
exhibits (No. 35), epsilon being recumbent and almost like alpha,
and the whole style of writing resembling a careless scrawl. The
words Ey Ϊλερμου Χαρκου at the top of the first page, in the same
beautiful hand that wrote many (t00 many) marginal notes, prove
that this codex once belonged to the William Chark, mentioned
under Cod. 61 (p. 149). In 1640 (Wetstein states 1669) Thomas
Hayne, M.A. of Trussington, in that county, gave the book to the
Leicester Library. Mill collated it there, as did John Jackson for
Wetstein, and some others. Tregelles re-collated it in 1852 for his
edition of the Greek Testament, and Scrivener very minutely in
1855; the latter published his results, with a full description of the
book itself, in the Appendix to his ‘‘Codex Augiensis.” No manu-
script of its age has a text so remarkable as this: though none of the
ordinary divisions into sections, and scarcely any liturgical marks
occur throughout, there is evidently a close connection between Cod.
69 and the Church service-books, as well in the interpolations of
proper names, particles of time, or whole passages (e. g. Luke xxii.
43, 44 placed after Matth. xxvi. 39) which are common to both, as
especially in the titles of the Gospels: ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον
(sic), &e., being in the very language of the Lectionaries’. Tables of
κεφάλαια stand before the three later Gospels, with very unusual
variations; for which, as well as for the foreign matter inserted and

1 See the style of the Evangelistaria, as cited above, pp. 68—7o; Matthaei’s
uncials BH and Birch’s 178 of the Gospels, described below.

152 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS

other peculiarities of Cod. 69, see Serivener’s Cod. Augiensis (Introd.
pp. XL—XLVII).

70. Cambridge P. L. 2144 or Ll. 2. 13 [xv] chart. (not in Trinity
College), was written, like Codd. 17. 30, by G. Hermonymus for
William Bodet, at Paris; it once belonged to Bunckle of London,
then to Bp. Moore. Like Cod. 62 it has the Latin chapters (Mill).

71. Lambeth 528 [dated 1160] 265 leaves 4°, is Mill’s Zph. and
Scrivener’s g. This elegant copy, which once belonged to an Arch-
bishop of Ephesus, was brought to England in 1675 by Philip
Traheron, English Chaplain at Smyrna. Traheron made a careful
collation of his manuscript, of which both the rough copy (B. M.,
Burney 24) and a fair one (Lambeth 528 b) survive. This last
Scrivener in 1845 compared with the original, and revised, especially
in regard to later corrections, of which there are many. Mill used
Traheron’s collation very carelessly. Carp., Hus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλοι,
Am., Eus. ο., lect. This copy presents a text full of interest, and much
superior to that of the mass of manuscripts.

72. Cod. Harleian. 5647 B. M. [x1] large 4°, an elegant copy
with a catena on Matthew, κεφ. t., τίτλ., κεφ., Am., Hus., pict., vari-
ous readings in the ample margin. Lent by T. Johnson to (Wetstein).

73. Christ-Church Oxford, Wake 26 [x1] 4°, Zus. t., κεφ. t., Am.,
Eus., pict. It is marked “Ex dono Mauri Cordati Principis Hun-
garo-Walachiae,” A° 1724. This and Cod. 74 were once Arch-
bishop Wake’s, and were collated for Wetstein by (Jo. Walker,
Wake MS. 55)".

74. ἐδ. Wake 20 [xi] 4°, written by Theodore (see p. 37,
mote 2). Mut. Matth. 1. 1—14; v. 29—vi. 1; 32 verses. It came
in 1727 from the Monastery of Παντοκράτωρ, on Mount Athos. Syn.,
Carp., Hus. t., titr., κεφ., Am., Eus., lect.

75. Cod. Genevensis 19 [x1] 4°, prol., Hus. t., pict. In text it
much resembles Cod. 6. Seen in 1714 by Wetstein, collated by
(Scholz, Cellérier, a Professor at Geneva).

76. (Act. 43, Paul. 49). Cod. Caesar-Vindobonensis, Nessel. 300,
Lambee. 28 [x1] 4°, prol., syn., pict. This copy (the only one known
to read αὐτῆς with the Complutensian and other editions in Luke ii.
22) is erroneously called uncial by Mill (Gerhard ἃ Mastricht 1690;
Ashe 1691; F. K. Alter 1786).

77. Caesar-Vindobon. Nessel. 114, Lambec. 29 [x1] 4°, very neat;
with a Commentary, prol., Hus. t., pict., and (by a later hand) syn.

1 Of the 183 manuscript volumes bequeathed by William Wake, Archbishop
of Canterbury [1657—1737] to Christ-Church (of which he had been a Canon),
no less than 28 contain portions of the Greek Testament, not more than seven of
which have ever appeared in any printed Catalogue. They are all described in
the present and the next section from a comparison of Dean Gaisford’s MS.
Catalogue (1837) with the books themselves, to which Canon Jacobson’s kindness
gave me access.

OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 158

It once belonged to Matthias Corvinus, the great King of Hungary
(1458—90). Collated in “Tentamen descriptionis codicum,” &c.
1773 by (Treschow, and by Alter).

78. Cod. Nicolae Jancovich de Vadass, now in Hungary [x1] 4°,
ius. t., κεφ. t., τίτλοι, κεφ., lect., syn., pict. It was once in the library
of King Matthias Corvinus: on the sack of Buda by the Turks
in 1527, his noble collection of 50,000 volumes was scattered, and
about 1686 this book fell into the hands of 8. B., then of J. G. Carp-
zov of Leipsic, at whose sale it was purchased and brought back to
its former country. A previous possessor, in the 17th century, was
Τεώργιος δεσμοφύλαξ Ναυπλίου. (Collated by C. F. Boerner for
Kuster, and “in usum” of Scholz).

79. Cod. Geor. Douz (from Constantinople), consulted on John
viil. by Gomar at Leyden (perhaps 74 in that Library), Mut. with
a Latin version.

80. Cod. T. G. Grevii, then. Jo. Van der Hagen’s [xt], is pro-
bably still somewhere in Holland: it is said by Wetstein, who saw
it in 1739, to have been collated by Byneus in 1691. Prol., τίτλοι,
κεφ.» subscriptions: the Latin chapters were added [xv].

81. Greek manuscripts cited in a Correctorium Bibliorum Latino-
rum of the xmth century’.

82. Seven unknown Greek manuscripts of St John, three of
St Matthew and (apparently) of the other Gospels, cited in Laurentius
Valla’s “ Annotationes in N. T., ex diversorum utriusque linguae,
Graecae et Latinae, codicum collatione,” written about 1440, edited
by Erasmus, Paris 1505. His copies seem modern, and have probably
been used by later critics. The whole subject, however, is very care-
fully examined in the Rev. A. T. Russell’s Memoirs of the life and
works of Bp. Andrewes, pp. 282—310.

83. Cod. Monacensis 518 [x1] 4°, beautifully written, syn., at
Munich, whither it was brought from Augsburg (Bengel’s August. 1,
Scholz).

a Monacensis 568 [x11] 8°, contains Matthew and Mark. Mut.
Matth. i. 1—18; xiii. 1O—27; 42—xiv. 3; xviii. 25—xix. 9; xxi.
33—xxii. 4; Mark vii. 13—xvi. 20 (Bengel’s August. 2, Scholz).

85. Monacensis 569 [x11] 4°, contains only Matth. vii. 15—ix.
17; xvi. 12—xvii. 20; xxiv. 26—45; xxvi. 25—54; Mark vi. 13—
ix. 45; Luke iii. 12—vi. 44; John ix. 11—xil. 5; xix. 6—24;
xx, 23—xxi. 9 (Bengel’s August. 3, Scholz).

86. Cod. Posoniensis Lycaei Aug. [1]. Prol., Hus. t. Once at
Buda, but bought in 1183 at Constantinople for the Emperor Alex-
ius II. Comnenus (Bengel, Endlicher).

1 These formal revisions of the Latin Bible were mainly two, one made by the
University of Paris with the sanction of the Archbishop of Sens about 1230, and
a rival one undertaken by the Mendicant Orders, through Cardinal Hugo de
S. Caro (see above, p. 59), and adopted at their general Chapter held at Paris in
1256. A Manuscript of the latter was used by Lucas Brugensis and Simon
(Wetstein, N. T. Prol. Vol. 1, p. 85).

154 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS

87. _ Cod. Trevirensis [x11] fol., contains St John’s Gospel with
a eatena, published at length by Cordier at Antwerp. It once
belonged to the eminent scholar and mathematician, Cardinal Nicho-
las of Cuza, on the Moselle, near Tréves [1401—64: see Cod. 129];
previously to the monastery of Petra or the Fore-runner at Con-
stantinople’ (Scholz). Westein’s 87 is our 250,

88. Codex of the Gospels, 4°, on vellum, cited as ancient and
correct by Joachim Camerarius (who collated it) in his Annotations
to the New Testament. It resembles in text Codd. 63. 72. 80.

89. Cod. Gottingensis [dated 1006] fol., with corrections. Col-
lated by A. G. Gehl in 1739, and by Matthaei (No. 20).

90. (Act. 47, Paul. 14). Cod. Jo. Fabri, a Dominican of
Deventer [xv1, but copied from a manuscript written by Theodore
(p. 37, note 2) and dated 1293] 4°, chart. 2 vol. The Gospels stand
John, Luke, Matthew, Mark, the Pauline Epistles precede the Acts ;
and Jude is written twice, from different copies. This codex (which
has belonged to Abr. Hinckelmann of Hamburg, and to Wolff) was
collated by Wetstein. Faber [1472—living in 1515] had also com-
pared it with another “very ancient” vellum manuscript of the
Gospels presented by Sixtus IV. (1471—84) to Jo. Wessel of Gro-
ningen, but which was then at Zvolle. As might be expected, this
copy much resembles Cod. 74.

91. Cod. Perronianus [x], of which extracts were sent by Mont-
faucon to Mill, had been Cardinal Perron’s, and before him had
belonged to “S, Taurini monasterium Ebroicense” (Evreux).

92. Cod. Faeschii 1 (Act. 49) \ The former contains Mark with

94. Cod. Faeschii 2 Victor's Commentary on vellum,
the latter Mark and Luke with a Commentary, on paper. Both
belonged to Andrew Faesch, of Basle, and were collated by Wetstein.
Their date is not stated.

93. Cod. Greevii of the Gospels, cited by Voss on the Genealogy,
Luke iii.
95. Lincoln Coll. Oxon. 16 [x11] fol., is Mill’s Wheeler 2. It con-

tains Luke from xi. 2 and John all but 2 or 3 leaves, With Scholia,
syn. (Mill, Professor Nicoll).

96. Cod. Bodleian. Mise. 8 (Auct. D, 5. 1) [xv] 12°, is Walton’s
and Mill’s 7'rit., with many rare readings, containing St John with a
Commentary, beautifully written by Jo. Trithemius, Abbot of Span-
heim [d. 1516]. Received from Abraham Sculter [1] by Geo, Hack-
well, 1607 (Walton’s Polyglott, Mill, Griesbach).

97. Cod. Hirsaugiensis [1500, by Nicholas, a monk of Hirsau},
12°, on vellum, containing St John, seems but a copy of 96, Τὸ once

1 On fol. 4 we read ἡ βίβλος αὕτη (δε 178) τῆς μονῆς τοῦ Προδρόμου | τῆς
κειμένης ἔγγιστα τῆς Αε[αι]τίου | ἀρχαϊκὴ δὲ τῇ μονῆ κλῆσις Πέτρα. Compare Cod.
178 and Montfauc. Palaeogr. Graeca, pp. 39, 110, 305.

OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 155

belonged to Uffenbach, and is now at Giessen (Bengel’, Wetstein,
Maius, Schulze).

98. Cod. Bodleian. [xu] 4°, pict., E. D. Clarke 5, by whom it
was brought from the East. Κεφ. t., τίτλ., Am. (not Lus.), xed., lect.
It was collated in a few places for Scholz, who substituted it here
for Cod. R. (see p. 114) of Griesbach.

99. Cod. Lipsiensis, Bibliothec. Paul. [xv1] 4°, Matthaei’s 18,
contains Matth. iv. 8—yv. 27; vi. 2—xv. 30; Luke i. 1—13; syn.
(Matthaei). Wetstein’s 99 is our 155.

100. Cod. Paul. L. B. de Eubeswald [x] 4°, vellum, mut. Jo.
xxi. 25; pict., κεφ. t., Hus. t., and in a later hand many corrections
with scholia and syn., chart. J. C. Wagenseil used it in Hungary for
Jo. viii. 6. Our description presumes it to be the manuscript now
in the University of Pesth, but in the 15th century belonging to
Bp. Jo. Pannonius.

101. Cod. Uffenbach. 3 [xvi] 12°, chart., St John στιχήρης (see
p. 46). So near the Basle (that is, we suppose, Erasmus’) edition,
that Bengel never cites it. With two others (Paul. M and 52) it
was lent by Z. C. Uffenbach, Consul of Frankfort-on-the-Mayn, to
Wetstein in 1717, and afterwards to Bengel.

102. Cod. Bibliothecae Medicaeae, a valuable but unknown manu-
script with many rare readings, extracted by Wetstein at Amsterdam
for Matth. xxiv—Mark viii. 1, from the margin of a copy of Plantin’s
N. T. 1591, in the library of J.le Long. The Rev. B. F. Westcott is
convinced that the manuscript from which these readings were de-
rived is none other than Cod. B. itself.

103. Regius 196 [xt] fol., once Cardinal Mazarin’s, seems the
same manuscript as that from which Emericus Bigot gave extracts
to Curcellaeus’ N. Τὶ, 1658 (Scholz).

104. Cod. Hieronymi Vignerii [x], from which also Bigot ex-
tracted readings, which Wetstein obtained through J. Drieberg in
1744, and published.

105. (Act. 48, Paul. 24). Cod. Ebnerianus, Bodl. Miscell. 136,
a beautiful copy [x11] 4°, on 426 leaves of vellum, with 27 lines in
each, formerly belonged to Jerome Ebner von Eschenbach of Nu-
remberg. Pict., Carp., Eus. ἐ., κεφ. t., τίτλ., κεφ.» Am. (not Lus.), the
Nicene Creed, all in gold: syn.; with /ect. throughout and syn., men.
prefixed by Joasaph, a calligraphist, a.p. 1391, who also added John
viii. 3—11 at the end of that Gospel. Facsimile in Horne’s Intro-
duction, and in Tregelles’ Horne p. 220 (Schoenleben 1738, Rev.
H. O. Coxe).

106. Cod. Winchelsea [x], with many important readings, often
resembling the Philoxenian Syriac: believed to be still in the Earl of
Winchelsea’s Library (Jackson collated it for Wetstein in 1748).

107. Cod. Bodleian. [xtv. and later] 4°, is E. D, Clarke 6, con-

1 Though 97 once belonged to Uffenbach, ror better suits Bengel’s description
of Uffen. 3: they are written on different materials, and the description of their
respective texts will not let us suspect them to be the same,

Ἴ88 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS

taining the Gospels in different hands: xed. ¢., pict. (Like 98, 111,
112, partially collated for Scholz). Griesbach’s 107 is also 201.

108. Caesar-Vindobonensis, Kollar. 4, Forlos. 5 [xr] fol., 2 vol.
With a commentary, Hus. t., pict. It seems to have been written at
Constantinople, and formerly belonged to Parrhasius, then to the
convent of St John de Carbonaria at Naples (Treschow, Alter,
Birch, Scholz).

109. Brit. Mus. Addit. 5117 [a. p. 1326] 4°, syn., Hus. t., men.,
lect., τίτλοι, Am. (not Hus., κεφ.), Mead. 1, then Askew (5115 is Act.
22, 5116 is Paul. 75, in the same hand; different from that employed
in the Gospels).

110. Cod. Ravianus, Bibl. Reg. Berolinensis [xvi] 4°, 2 vols.,
on parchment, once belonging to Jo. Rave of Upsal, has been ex-
amined by Wetstein, Griesbach, and G. G. Pappelbaum in 1796. Τῷ
contains the whole New Testament, and has attracted attention
because it has the disputed words in 1 Jo. v. 7. It is now how-
ever admitted by all to be a mere transcript of the N.T. in the
Complutensian Polyglott with variations from Erasmus or Stephens,
and as such should be expunged from our list.

111. Cod. Bodleian. [x11] 4°, Clarke 7, mut. Jo. xx. 25—xxi. 25:
κεφ. t., Am. (not Hus.), and

112. Bodleian. [x1] 12°, Clarke 10, Carp., Hus. t., κεφ. t., tith.,
Am. and Hus. often in the same line (a very rare arrangement ; see
Wake 21 below), lect., syn., men., a very beautiful copy. These two,
very partially collated for Scholz, were substituted by him and
Tischendorf for collations whose history is not a little curious.

111. (Wetstein). THe VeELEsIAN READINGS. The Jesuit de la
Cerda inserted in his “ Adversaria Sacra,” cap. ΧΟῚ (Lyons 1626) a
collection of various readings, written in vermilion in the margin of
a Greek Testameft (which from its misprint in 1 Pet. iii. 11, we
know to be R. Stephens’ of 1550) by Pedro Faxardo, Marquis of Velez,
a Spaniard, who had taken them from sixteen manuscripts, eight of
which were in the king’s library, in the Escurial. It is never stated
what codices or how many support each variation. De la Cerda had
received the readings from Mariana, the great Jesuit historian of Spain,
then lately dead, and appears to have inadvertently added to Mariana’s
account of their origin, that the sixteen manuscripts were in Greek.
These Velesian readings, though suspected from the first even by
Mariana by reason of their strange resemblance to the Latin Vulgate
and the manuscripts of the Old Latin, were repeated as critical
authorities in Walton’s Polyglott, 1657, and (contrary to his own
better judgment) were retained by Mill in 1707. Wetstein, however
(N. T. Proleg. Vol. 1. pp. 59—61), and after him Michaelis and Bp.
Marsh, have abundantly proved that the various readings must have
been collected by Velez from Latin manuscripts, and by him trans-
lated into Greek, very foolishly perhaps, but not of necessity with
a fraudulent design. Certainly, any little weight the Velesian read-
ings may have, must be referred to the Latin, not to the Greek text,
Among the various proofs of their Latin origin urged by Wetstein

OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 157

ae the following establish the fact beyond the possibility of
oubt:

112. (Wetstein). THE BARBERINI READINGS must also be banished
from our list of critical authorities, though for a different reason.
The collection of various readings from 22 manuscripts (ten of the
Gospels, eight of the Acts and Epistles, and four of the Apocalypse),
seen by Isaac Vossius in 1642 in the Barberini Library at Rome, was
first published in 1673, by Peter Possinus (Poussines), a Jesuit, at
the end of a Catena of St Mark. He alleged that the collations were
made by John M. Caryophilus [d. 1635], a Cretan, while preparing
an edition of the Greek Testament, under the patronage of Paul V.
[d. 1621]and Urban VITI. [d. 1644]. As the Barberini readings often
favour the Latin version, they fell into the same suspicion as the
Velesian: Wetstein, especially (Proleg. Vol. 1. pp. 61, 62), after
pressing against them some objections more ingenious than solid,
declares “lis haec non aliter quam ipsis libris Romae inventis et pro-
ductis, quod nunquam credo fiet, solvi potest.” The very papers
Wetstein called for were discovered by Birch (Barberini Lib. 209)
more than thirty years later, and besides them Caryophilus’ petition
for the loan of six manuscripts from the Vatican (Codd. BS. 127.
129, 141. 144), which he doubtless obtained and used. The good
faith of the collator being thus happily vindicated, we have only to
identify his thirteen remaining codices, most of them probably being
in that very Library, and may then dismiss the Barberini readings as
having done their work, and been fairly superseded.

113. Cod. Harleian. 1810 Brit. Mus. [xt] 4°, prol., Carp., Lus. t.,
pict., lect., κεφ. t., τίτλ., κεφ., Am., Hus., and (in a later hand) syn.
(Griesbach, Bloomfield): its readings are of more than usual interest,
as are those of

114. Harleian. 5540 [xr] 12°, (facsemile in a Greek Testament,
published in 1837 by Taylor, London), very elegant, with more recent
marginal notes and Matth. xxviii. 19—Mark i. 12 im a later hand.
Mut. Matth. xvii. 4—18; xxvi. 59—73 (Griesbach, Bloomfield),
Carp., κεφ. t., τίτλ., κεφ., Am. (not Hus.).

115. Harleian. 5559 [x1] 4°, once Bernard Mould’s (Smyrna,
1724), with an unusual text. Mut. Matth. 1. 1—viii. 10; Mark v.
23—36; Luke i. 78—ii. 9; vi. 4—15; John xi. 2—xxi. 25 (Gries-
bach, Bloomfield). A few more words of John xi. survive; τίτλ.,
κεφ.; Am., and sometimes Hus."

1 In Cod. 115 Lus. is usually, in Codd. 116 and 117 but rarely written under
Am.; these copies therefore were never quite finished.

158 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS

116. Harleian. 5567 [xm] small 4°, Hus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλ., Am,
lect., syn., of some value. It belonged in 1649 to Athanasius a
Greek monk, then to B. Mould (Griesbach, Bloomfield).

117. (Apost. 6). Harleian. 5731 [xv] 4°, chart., carelessly writ-
ten, once belonged to the great Bentley. J/ut. Matth. i. 1—18: lect.,
pict., Carp., Eus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλ., Am., syn., fragments of a Lectionary
on the last twenty leaves (Griesbach, Bloomfield).

118, Bodleian. Miscell. 13, Marsh. 24 [x11] 4°, an important
palimpsest (with the Gospels uppermost) once the property of Arch-
bishop Marsh of Armagh. <Am., Hus., κεφ. t., lect. with syn., men.;
and some of the Psalms on paper. Later hands also supplied Matth. i,
1—vi. 2; Luke xiii. 35—xiv. 20; xviii, 8—xix. 9; John xvi. 25—
xxi. 25. Well collated by (Griesbach).

119. Regius 85, Paris [xm] 4°, formerly Teller’s of Rheims, is
Kuster’s Paris 5 (Griesbach).

120. Regius 185 a [xu] 4°, formerly belonged to St Victor’s on
the Walls, Paris, and seems to be Stephens’ ιδ΄, whose text (1550) and
Colinaeus’ (1534) it closely resembles, St Mark is wanting (Gries-
bach).

121. An important lost codex, once at St Geneviéve’s, in Paris
[dated Sept. 1284, Indiction 12], 4. Mut, Matth. ν. 21—viii, 24
(Griesbach).

122. (Act. 177, Paul. 219). Bibl. Lugdunensis-Batavorum [x11]
4°, once Meermann’s' 116. J/ut. Act. i. 1—14; xxi. 14—xxii. 28;
1 Jo. iv. 20—Jud. 25; Rom. i. 1—vii. 13; 1 Cor. ii. 7—xiv. 23 (Der-
mout, Collect. Crit. 1 p. 14). Griesbach’s 122 is also 97.

123. Caesar-Vindobon. Nessel. 240, Lambec. 30 [x1] 4°, brought
from Constantinople by Auger Busbeck; prol., Hus. t., pict., correc-
tions by another hand (Treschow, Alter, Birch).

*124, Caesar-Vindobon. Nessel. 118, Lambec. 31 [xm] 4°, Hus.
t., syn., mut. Luke xxiii. 31—xxiv. 28, an eclectic copy, with correc-
tions by the first hand (Mark ii. 14; Luke iii. 1, &c). This manu-
script (which once belonged to a certain Leo) is considered by Birch
the best of the Vienna codices; it resembles the Philoxenian Syriac,
old Latin, Codd. DL. 1 13, and especially 69 (Treschow, Alter,
Birch).

125. Caesar-Vindobon. Kollar. 6, Forlos. 16 [x] 4°, with many
corrections in the margin and between the lines (Treschow, Alter,
Birch).

126. Cod. Guelpherbytanus xvi. 16 [x1] carelessly written. us.

t., κεφ. t., prol., pict., with lect., syn. in a later hand, and some quite
modern corrections. Matth. xxviii, 18—20 is cruciform, capitals

1 Meermann’s other two manuscripts of the N. T. dispersed at his sale in
1824, are No. 117, 436 of the Gospels (also set down in error as Evangelistarium
153), and No, 118 at Middle-Hill (Act. 178, Paul, 242, Apoe, 87).

OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 159

often occur in the middle of words, and the text is of an unusual
character. Inspected by (Heusinger 1752, Knittel, Tischendorf).

N.B. Codd. 127—181, all at Rome, were inspected, and a few
(127. 131. 157) really collated by Birch, when at Rome about 1782.
Of 153 Scholz collated the greatest part, and small portions of 138
—44; 146—52; 154—57; 159—60; 162; 164—71; 173—75; 177
—80.

127. Cod. Vatican. 349 [xr] fol., Hus. t., κεφ. ¢., a neatly written
and important copy, with a few later corrections (e. g. Matth. xxvii.
49).

128. Vat. 356 [x1] fol., prol., κεφ. t., and the numbers of the
στίχοι.

129. Vat. 358 [x11] fol., with scholia, and a note on Jo. vii. 53,
as we read in Cod. 145 and others. Bought at Constantinople in 1438
by Nicholas de Cuza, Eastern Legate to the Council of Ferrara (see
Cod. 87).

130. Vat. 359 [xi] fol., chart., a curious copy, with the Greek
and Latin in parallel columns, and the Latin chapters.

131. (Act. 70, Paul. 77, Apoc. 66). Vat. 360 [x1] 4°, contains the
whole New Testament, with many remarkable variations, and a text
somewhat like that of Aldus’ Greek Testament (1518). The manu-
script was given to Sixtus V. [1585—90] for the Vatican by “ Aldus
Manuccius Paulli F. Aldi.” The Epistle to the Hebrews stands
before 1 Tim. Carp., Hus. t., κεφ. t., of an unusual arrangement (viz.
Matth. 74, Mark 46, Luke 57: see above, p. 49). This copy contains
many itacisms, and corrections prima manu.

132. Vat. 361 [x1] 4°, Hus. ¢., pict.

133. (Act. 71, Paul. 78). Vat. 363 [xr?] 4°, syn., Euthalian
prologues.

134, Vat. 364 [χτ1] 4°, elegant. Hus. ¢., pict., titles in gold.

135. Vat. 365 [xr?] 4°, κεφ. &, pict. The first 26 of its 174
leaves are later and chart.

136. Vat. 665 [x11] fol., on cotton paper; contains Matthew and
Mark with EKuthymius’ Commentary.

137. Vat. 756 [x1 or x11] fol., with a Commentary. At the end
we read Ko φραγκισκος ακκιδας ευγενὴς κολασσευς. «-βωμῃ ἤγαγε το παρον
βιβλιον ετει απὸ adap Coa [A.D. 1583], μηνι ιουλιῳ, wd. τα.

138. Vat. 757 [x11] fol., with Commentary from Origen, &c.

139. Vat. 758 [x11] fol., contains Luke and John with a Com-
mentary.

140. Vat. 1158 [χη] 4°, beautifully written, and given by the
Queen of Cyprus to Innocent. VIL. (1404—6). Eus. t., pict. In
Luke i. 64 it supports the Complutensian reading, καὶ ἡ λοῦσα αὐτοῦ
διηρθρώθη.

141. (Act. 75, Paul. 86, Apoc. 40). Vat. 1160 [xm] 4°, 2 vol.
contains the whole New Testament, syn., pict. The leaves are ar-
ranged in quaternions, but separately for each volume.

160 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS

142. (Act. 76, Paul. 87). Vat. 1210 [x1] 12°, very neat, con-
taining also the Psalms. There are many marginal readings in ano-
ther ancient hand.

143. Vat. 1229 [x1] fol., with a marginal Commentary. On the
first leaf is read τῆς ορθης πιστεως πίστῳ οἰκονομῳ Kat φυλακι ἸΤαυλῳ
τετάρτῳ [1δδῦ---ὔ9].

144, Wat. 1254 [x1] 8°, Hus. ¢., κεφ. t.

145. Vat. 1548 [xm] 4°, contains Luke and John. Mud. Luke
iv. 15—v. 36; Jo. i. 1—26. A later hand has written Luke xvii—
xxi, and made many corrections.

146. Palatino-Vatican. δ᾽ [x11] fol., contains Matth. and Mark
with a Commentary.

147. Palat.-Vat. 89 [x1] 8°, syn.

148. Palat.-Vat. 136 [xm] 4°, with some scholia and unusual
readings.

149. (Act. 77, Paul. 88, Apoc. 25). Palat.-Vat. 171 [xv] fol.,
lect., contains the whole New Testament.

150. Palat.-Vat. 189 [x1] 16°, Hus. ¢., syn.

151. Palat.-Vat. 220 [x1] 4°, Hus. t., scholia in the margin, and
some rare readings (e.g. Jo. xix. 14). The sheets are in 21 quater-
nions. After Matthew stands ἐκλογὴ ev συντόμω εκ των συντεθεντων
ὑπο Ἐυσεβιου προς Στεφανον A.

152. Palat.-Vat. 227 [xin] 4°, prol., pict.
153. Palat.-Vat. 229 [xr] 4°, on cotton paper. Prol., syn.

154. Cod. Alexandrino-Vatican. vel Christinae 28 [dated April
14, 1442] 4°, written in Italy on cotton paper, with Theophylact’s
Commentary. It was given by Christina Queen of Sweden to Alex-
ander VIII. (1689—91).

155. Alex.-Vat. 79 [xr? Birch, x1v Scholz] 12°, with some
lessons from St Paul prefixed. Given by Andrew Rivet to Rutger-
sius, Swedish Embassador to the United Provinces. This copy is
Wetstein’s 99, the codex Rutgersii cited by Dan. Heinsius in his
Exercitat. sacr. in Evangel.

156. Alex.-Vat. 189 [x1] 12°: “ex bibliothecd Goldasti” is on
the first page.

157. Cod. Urbino-Vat. 2 [x1] 8°, deemed by Birch the most
important manuscript of the N. T. in the Vatican, except Cod. B.
It belonged to the Ducal Library at Urbino, and was brought to
Rome by Clement VII. (1523—34). It is very beautifully written
on 325 leaves of vellum (Birch, N, Τὶ 1788, gives a facsimile), with

1 A collection presented to Urban VIII. (1623—44) by Maximilian, Elector
of Bavaria, from the spoils of the unhappy Elector Palatine, titular King of
Bohemia,

OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 161

Eus. t., prol., certain chronicles, xed., τίτλοι and rich ornaments, pic-
tures, &c. in vermilion and gold. On fol. 19 we read underneath
two figures Iwavvys ev χω τω Ow πιστὸς βασιλευς ToppupoyevvyToS και
αὐτοκρατωρ ῥωμαιων, ὁ Kopvyvos, and Αλεξιος εν χω τω Ow πιστος
βασιλεὺς πορφυρογεννητος ὁ Kopvynvos. The Emperor John II. the
Handsome succeeded his father, the great Alexius, a.p. 1118. For
the subscriptions appended to the Gospels in this copy (which also
register the number of στίχοι in each of them), see above, p. 47. In
text it is akin to Codd. BDL. 69. 106, and especially to 1.

158. Cod. Pii IL. Vatic. 53 [x1] 4°, with Hus. t., κεφ. £., and
readings in the margin, primd@ manu. This copy was given to the
Library by Pius IT. (1458—64). ᾿

159. Cod. Barberinianus 8 [x1] 4°, in the Barberini Palace, at
Rome, founded above two centuries since by the Cardinal, Francis
II, of that name.

160. Barberin. 9 [dated 1123] 4°, syn.

161. Barberin. 10 [x] 4°, ending at Jo. xvi. 4. This copy fol-
lows the Latin versions both in its text (Jo. 11. 6) and marginal
scholia (Jo. vii. 29). Various readings are often thus noted in its
margin.

162. Barberin. 11 [dated 13 May, 1153 (sxéa), Indict. 1] 4°,
written by one Manuel: Hus. t., pict.

163. Barberin. 12 [xt] fol., written in Syria. Scholz says it
contains only the portions of the Gospels read in Church-lessons, but
Birch the four Gospels, with Hus. ὁ, κεφ. t., the numbers of ῥήματα
and στίχοι to the first three Gospels (see p. 57, note).

164. Barberin. 13 [dated Oct. 1040] 8°, Hus. t., κεφ. t., syn., and
numbers of στίχοι. The subscription states that it was written by
Leo, a priest and calligrapher, and bought in 1168 by Bartholomew,
who compared it with ancient Jerusalem manuscripts on the sacred
mount.

165. Barberin. 14 [dated 1197] fol., with the Latin Vulgate
version, Hus. t., κεφ. t., syn. Written for one Archbishop Paul, and
given to the Library by Eugenia, daughter of Jo. Pontanus.

166. Barberin. 115 [x11] 4°, containing only Luke ix. 33—
xxiv. 24 and John.

167. Barberin. 208 [x11 or xtv] 12°, κεφ. t., pict., subscriptions
numbering the στίχοι.

168. Barberin. 211 [x11] fol., with Theophylact’s Commentary.

169. Cod. Vallicellianus B. 133 [x1] 12°, once the property of
Achilles Statius, as also was Cod. 171. Prol., syn., pict. This
codex and the next three are in the Library of St Maria in Val-
licella at Rome, and belong to the Fathers of the Oratory of St Phi-
lippo Neri.

170. Vallicell. C. 61 [x11] 4°, syn. The end of Luke and most
of John is in a later hand.

171. Vallicell. C. 73 [x1v] 85, Montfaucon ascribes it to [x1].

᾿ Lt

162 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS

172. Vallicell. F. 90 [x1] 4°, now only contains the Pentateuch,
but from Blanchini, Evan. Quadr. Pt. 1. pp. 529—30, we infer that the
Gospels were once there.

173. Vatic. 1983, Basil. 22 [xr or xm] 4°, ending John xiii. 1,
seems to have been written in Asia Minor. Lect., syn., Eus. t., the
number of ῥήματα and στίχοι being appended to the first three Gos-
pels as in Codd. 163; 164; 167. This codex, and the next four,
were brought from the Library of the Basilian monks.

174. Vatic. 2002, Basil. 41 [dated 4" hour of Sept. 2, a.p. 1053]
4°, mut. Matth. i. 1—ii. 1; Jo. 1. 1—27; ending viii. 47. Written
by the monk Constantine “tabernis habitante,” ‘cum praeesset
praefecturae Georgilas dux Calabriae” (Scholz).

175. (Act. 41, Paul. 194, Apoc. 20) Vat. 2080, Basil. 119 [x1]
4°, contains the whole New Testament (beginning Matth. iv. 17)
with scholia to the Acts, between which and the Catholic Epistle
stands the Apocalypse (see p. 62). There are some marginal cor-
rections primd manu (e.g. Luke xxiv. 13). The Pauline Epistles
have Euthalius’ subscriptions. Also inspected by Blanchini.

176. Vat. 2113, Basil. 152 [xm] 4°, lect. Begins Matth. x. 13,
ends Jo. ii. 1. E
177. Vat.1, Basil. 163 [x1] 8°, mut. Jo. i. 1—29.

178. Cod. Angelicus A. 1. 5 [xm] fol. Hus. t., mut. Jo. xxi. 17—
25. Arranged in quaternions, and the titles to the Gospels resem-
ble those in Cod. 69. Codd. 178—9 belong to the Angelica convent
of Augustinian Eremites at Rome. Montfaucon (Palaeogr. Graeca,
pp. 290—1) describes and gives a facsimile of Cod. 178. Τὸ has on
the first leaf the same subscription as we gave under Cod. 87: which
Birch and Scholz misunderstand.

179. Angelic. A. 4. 11 [x11] 4°, Hus. t., κεφ. t., lect. The last
five leaves (214—18) and two others (23, 30) are chart., and hn a
later hand.

180. (Act. 82, Paul. 92, Apoc. 44) Cod. Bibl. Propagandae 250,
Borgiae 2 [x1] 8°, /ect.; the Gospels were written by one Andreas:
the rest of the New Testament and some apocryphal books by one
John, November 1284. This manuscript, with Cod. T and Evst. 37,
belonged to the Velitran Museum of “ Praesul Steph. Borgia, Col-
legii Urbani de Propaganda Fide a secretis.”

181. Cod. Francisci Xavier, Cardinal. de Zelada [x1] fol., with
scholia in the margin. This manuscript (from which Birch took
extracts) seems now missing.

Codd, 182—198, all in that noble Library at Florence, founded
by Cosmo de Medici [d. 1464], increased by his grandson Lorenzo
ἃ, 1492], were very slightly examined by Birch, and subsequently

y Scholz.
182. Cod. Laurentianus vi. 11 [xm] 4°.

183. Laurent. vi. 14 [xm] 8°, pict, Hus. 4, men., at the end of
which is τέλος σὺν Θεῷ ἁγίῳ τοῦ μηνολογίου, ἀμήν" © ven [i. 6, A.D. 910],
.

OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 163

which Scholz refers to the date of the arrangement of the menology.
It might seem more naturally to belong to the manuscript itself.

184. Laurent. vi. 15 [x11] 4°, prol.

185. Laurent. vi. 16 [x11] 4°, prol., syn. ; written by one Basil.

186. Laurent. vi. 18 [x1] fol., prol., Hus. t., Commentary; written
by Leontius, a calligrapher.

187. Laurent. vi. 23 [x11] 4°, pict., with readings in the margin
by the first hand.

188. Laurent. vi. 25 [x1] 8°, syn.

189. (Act. 141, Paul. 239). Laurent. vi. 27 [x11] 12°, prol., syn.,
mut. at end of John.

190. Laurent. vi. 28 [dated July 1285, Ind. 13] 8°.

191. Laurent. vi. 29 [x11] 8°, prol.

192. Laurent. vi. 30 [x11] 12°, prod.

193. Laurent. γι. 32 [x1] 8°, Hus. ¢., pict., lect.

194. Laurent. vi. 33 [x1] fol., pict. and a marginal Catena.
Begins Matth. i. 7.

195. Laurent. vi. 34 [xt] fol., once belonged to the Cistercian
convent of 8. Salvator de Septimo. Prol., syn., and a Commentary.
The date of the year is lost, but the month (May) and indiction (8)
remain.

196. Laurent. vir. 12 [x1] 4°, in red letters (see p. 138, note 2),
pict., with a catena.

197. (Act. 96) Laurent. vir. 14 [x1] fol., contains the Epistle
of James and fragments of Matthew and Mark, with Chrysostom’s
Commentary.

198. Laurent. 256 [x11] 4°, on cotton paper, Hus. ¢., from the
library “ Atdilium Flor. Ecce.”

Codd. 199—203 were inspected, rather than collated, by Birch at
Florence; the first two in the Benedictine library of St Maria; the
others in that of St Mark, belonging to the Dominican Friars.
Scholz could not find any of them, but 201 is Wetstein’s 107, Seri-
vener’s m; and 202 is now in the British Museum, Addit. 14774.

199. Cod. 5. Mariae, 5 [xm] 4°, Hus. ¢., with iambic verses and
scholia.

200. 5. Mariae 6 [x] 4°, pict., Hus. t., prol., syn., with fragments
of Gregory against the Arians.

*201. (Act. 91, Paul. 104, Apoc. b*", or Kelly 94) Cod. Prae-
dicator. 8. Marci 701 [dated Oct. 7, 1357, Ind. 11], large fol., on
492 leaves. This splendid copy was purchased for the British Mu-
seum (where-it is numbered Butl. 2, or Addit. 11837) from the heirs
of Dr Samuel Butler, Bishop of Lichfield. It contains the whole
New Testament; was first cited by Wetstein (107) from notices by
Jo. Lamy, in his “de Eruditione Apostolorum,” Florence, 1738,
glanced at by Birch, and stated by Scholz (N. T. Vol. τι. pp. xu,
XxvilI) to have been cursorily collated by himself: how that is pos-

104 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS

sible can hardly be understood, as he elsewhere professes his igno-
rance where the manuscript had gone (N. T. Vol. τ. p. uxxm).
Scrivener collated the whole volume. There are many changes by a
later hand, also syn., κεφ. t., κεφ., Am., Lus., lect., prol., and some
foreign matter.

202. Praedicat. S. Marci 705 [x11] 4°, syn.

203. Praedicat. 8S. Marci 707 [xv] 4°, chart., is really in modern
Greek. Birch cites it for Jo. vii. 53, but it ought to be expunged
from the list.

204. (Act. 92, Paul. 105) Bononiensis Canonic. Regular. 640
[x1] at Bologna (Birch, Scholz).

Codd. 205—217 at Venice, were slightly examined by Birch.

205. (Act. 93, Paul. 106, Apoc. 88) Venet. 8. Marci 5 [xv]
fol., contains both Testaments, with many peculiar readings. It was
written for Cardinal Bessarion (apparently by John Rhosen his libra-
rian), the donor of all these books. C. F. Rink considers it in the
Gospels a mere copy of Cod. 209 (“ Lucubratio Critica in Act. Apost.
Epp. C. et P.,” Basileae, 1830).

206. (Act. 94, Paul. 107) Venet. 6 [xv] fol., like Cod. 69, is
partly on parchment, partly on paper. It contains the whole New
Testament, but is not numbered for the Apocalypse.

207. Venet. 8 [x] 4°, Carp., Hus. t., syn., mut. at the beginning.

208. Venet. 9 [x] 8°, Hus. t., κεφ. t., of some value, but far less
than the important

209. (Act. 95, Paul. 108, Apoc. 46) Venet. 10 [xv] 8°, of the
whole New ἡ ἐπα πα, once Bessarion’s, who had it. wat him at
the Council of Florence, 1439, and wrote many notes in it. It
would seem that in the Gospels and Apocalypse either Cod, 205 is
copied from 209, or vice versd. Rink, who collated them for the
Acts and Epistles, states that they differ in those portions. A good
collation of one or both is needed; Birch did little, Engelbreth gave
him some readings, and Fleck has published part of a collation by
Heimbach. In the Gospels it is very like Cod. B. The Apocalypse
has prol. For the unusual order of the books, see above, p. 61.

210. Venet. 27 [x] fol., with a catena.

211. Venet. 539 [x11] 4°, mut., with an Arabic version.

212. Venet. 540 [xi] 8°.

213. Venet. 542 [χη 8°.

214. Venet. 543 [χιν] 8°, chart., syn.

215. Venet. 544 [x1] fol., Carp., Hus. t., with a Commentary.

216. Codex Canonici, brought by him ae Coreyra to St Mark's,
in a small character [no date assigned ].

217. Venet. 8. Marci, cl. 1. cod. 3, given in 1478 by Peter de
Montagnana to the monastery of St John, in Viridario, at Padua
[x11] 4°, in fine condition. us. t., syn.

Codd. 218—225 are in the Imperial] Library at Vienna. Alter
and Birch collated them about the same time, the latter but cursorily.

OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 165

*218. (Act. 65, Paul. 57, Apoc. 33) Caesar-Vindobon. 23, Lam-
bee. 1, Nessel. 23 [x11] fol., contains both Testaments. Mut. Apoc.
xiii. 5—-xiv. 8; xv. 7—xvii. 2; xviii. 10—xix. 15; ending at xx. 7
λυθήσεται. This important copy, containing many peculiar readings,
was described by Treschow, and comprises the text of Alter’s incon-
yenient, though fairly accurate N. T. 1786—7, to be described in
Chap. v. Like Cod. 123 it was brought from Constantinople by
Busbeck.

219. Lambec. 32, Nessel. 321 [xz11] 8°, prol.

220. Lambec. 33, Nessel. 337 [xrv] 12°, in very small letters.

221. Caesar-Vindobon. cxvut. 29, Lambec. 38 [x1] fol., with
commentaries (Chrysostom on Matth. John, Victor on Mark, Titus
of Bostra on Luke), to which the portions of the text here given are
accommodated: it begins Matth. 1. 11.

222. Lambec. 39, Nessel. 180 [x1v] 4°, on cotton paper, mué.
Contains portions of the Gospels, with a commentary.

223. Lambec. 40, Nessel. 301 [x1v] 4°, contains fragments of
Matthew, Luke and John, with a catena. Codd. 221—3 must be
cited cautiously: Alter appears to have made no use of them.

224. Caesar-Vindob. Kollar. 8, Forlos. 30 [date not given] 4°,
only contains St Matthew. This copy came from Naples.

225. Kollar. 9, Forlos. 31 [dated sp or a.p. 1192] 8°, more
important. Syn., men.

Codd. 226—233 are in the Escurial, described by D. G. Mol-
denhawer, who collated them about 1783, loosely enough, for Birch’s
edition, in a temper which by no means disposed him to exaggerate
their value (see below, Chap. v).

226. (Act. 108, Paul. 228) Codex Escurialensis x. tv. 17 [x1]
8°, on the finest vellum, richly ornamented, in a small, round, very
neat hand. Hus. t., κεφ. t., lect:, pict., τίτλοι, κεφ., Hus. Many correc-
tions were made by a later hand, but the original text is valuable,
and the readings sometimes unique. Fairly collated.

227. Escurial. x. mr. 15 [xr] 4°, prol., cep. t., Am., pict. A
later hand, which dates 1308, has been very busy in making correc-
tions.

228, (Act. 109, Paul. 229) Escurial. y. 1v. 12 [xiv] 8°, chart.
Once belonged to Nicholas Nathanael of Crete, then to Andreas
Darmarius of Epidaurus, a calligrapher. Hus. t., syn.’

229. Escurial. x. 1v. 21 [dated 1140] 8°, written by Basil Argy-
ropolus, a notary. J/ut. Mark xvi. 15—20; Johni. 1—11. Puret., lect. ;
the latter by a hand of about the 14th century, which retraced much
of the discoloured ink, and corrected in the margin (since mutilated
by the binder) very many important readings of the first hand, which
often resemble those of ADK τ. 72.

230. Escurial. φ. 11. 5 [dated Oct. 29, 1013, with the wrong
Indiction, 11 for 12] 4°, written by Luke a monk and priest, with

1 Thus, at least, I understand Moldenhawer’s description, “ Evangeliis et Actis
λέξεις subjiciuntur dudum in vulgus notae.”

166 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS

a double syn.', Carp., xed. t., subscriptions with the number of
ῥήματα and στίχοι. An interesting copy, deemed by Moldenhawer
worthy of closer examination.

231. Escurial. ¢. m1. 6 [x11] 4°, Ject., Hus. t. torn, κεφ. ¢., a picture
“quae Marcum mentitur,” subscriptions with στίχοι numbered, syn.,
men. There are some marginal glosses by a later hand (which obe-
lizes Jo. vii. 53 seq.), and a Latin version over parts of St Matthew.

232. Escurial. φ. m1. 7 [xm] 4°, very elegant but otherwise a
poor copy. Double syn., τίτλοι in the margin of Matthew and Luke,
but elsewhere kept apart.

233. Escurial. Y. um. 8 [x11], like Codd. 69, 206 is partly of
parchment, partly paper, in bad condition, and once belonged to
Matthew Dandolo, a Venetian noble. It has a catena, and through
ligatures, ὅσο. (see p. 38) is hard to read. Prol., κεφ. t., Hus. t.
(apart), some iambics, and ῥήματα, στίχοι to the first two Gospels.

234. (Act. 57, Paul. 72) Codex Havniensis 1. [dated 1278] 4°,
one of the several copies written by Theodore (see p. 37, note 2).
This copy and Cod. 235 are now in the Royal Library at Copen-
hagen, but were bought at Venice by F. Rostgaard in 1099, The
order of the books in Cod. 234 is described p. 62. Syn., men., lect.,
with many corrections. (C. G. Hensler, 1784).

235. Havniens. 2 [dated 1314] 4°, written by the iepopovaxos
Philotheus, though very incorrectly ; the text agrees much with Codd.
DK 1. 33 and the Philoxenian Syriac. Ked. ¢., lect.; the words
are often ill divided and the stops misplaced (Hensler).

236. Readings extracted by Griesbach (Symbolae Criticae 1.
pp. 247—304) from the margin of a copy of Mill’s Greek Testament
in the Bodleian, either in his own or Thomas Hearne’s handwriting.
Scrivener (Cod. Augiensis, Introd. p. xxxvi) has shewn that they
were derived from Evan. 440, which see below.

Codd. 237—259 are nearly all Moscow manuscripts, and were
thoroughly collated by C. F. Matthaei, for his N.T. to be described
in Chapter v. These Russian codices were for the most part brought
from the twenty-two monasteries of Mount Athos by the monk
Arsenius, on the suggestion of the Patriarch Nico, in the reign of
Michael, son of Alexius (1645—76), and placed in the library of the
Holy Synod, at Moscow.

*237. S. Synod 42 [x] fol., Matthaei’s d, from Philotheus (monas-
tery) pict. with scholia.

*238. Syn. 48 (Mt. e) [x1] fol., with a catena and scholia; only
contains Matthew and Mark, but is of good quality.

*239. Syn. 47 (Mt. g) [x1] fol., contains Mark xvi. 2—8; Luke;
John to xxi. 23, with scholia,

*240. Syn. 49 (Mt. i) [xi] fol., once belonging to Philotheus,
then to Dionysius (monasteries) on Athos, with the Commentary of

! By double syn. Moldenhawer may be supposed to mean here and in Cod, 232
both syn, and men,

OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 167

Euthymius Zigabenus. Mut. Mark viii. 12—34; xiv. 17--54; Luke
xv. 32—xvi. 8.

*241. (Act. 104, Paul. 120, Apoc. 47) Cod. Dresdensis, once
Matthaei’s (k) [xr] 4°, syn., the whole N. T., beautifully written,
with rare readings.

*242. (Act. 105, Paul. 121, Apoc. 48) Syn. 380 (Mt. 1) [xz] 8°,
the whole N. T., with Psalms, oes prol., pict., Hus. t.

*243, Gra. Typographei 8. Syn. 13 (Mt. m) [xrv] fol., on cotton
paper, from the Iberian monastery on Athos, contains Matthew and
Luke with Theophylact’s Commentary.

*244. Typograph. 1 (Mt. n) [xm] fol., pict. with Euthymius
Zigabenus’ Commentary.

*245, Syn. 265 (Mt. 0) [dated 1199] 4°, from the monastery
“ Batopedii,” written by John, a priest.

“246. Syn. 261 (Mt. p) [xiv] 4°, chart., with marginal various
readings. Mut. Matth. xii. 41—xiii. 5D: John xvii. 24—xviii, 20.

*247. Syn. 373 (Mt. 4) [x11] 8°, syz., from Philotheus.

*248. Syn. 264 πὰ r) [dated 1275] 4°, written by Meletius a
Beroean for Cyrus Alypius, οἰκόνομος of St George’s monastery, in
the reign of Michael Palaeologus (1259—82).

*249,. Syn. 94 (Mt. s) [x1] fol., from Παντοκράτωρ monastery (as
Cod. 74). Contains John with a catena.

*250. Syn. in a box (Mt. v) [xm] is the cursive portion of
Cod. V (see p. 117), John vii. 39—xxi. 25. It is also Wetstein’s
Cod. 87.

*251. Cod. Tabularii Imperial. at Moscow (Mt. x) [x1] 4°, Zus. ¢.,
pict.

*252. Cod. Dresdensis, once Matthaei’s (2) [x1] 4°, with corrections
and double readings (as from another copy), but primd manu.

*253. Codex of Nicephorus Archbishop of Cherson, “et Slabinii,”
(Slaviansk?) formerly belonged to the monastery of St Michael, at
Jerusalem (Mt. 10) [x1] fol., with scholia and rare readings.

*254. Codex belonging to Matthaei (11) [x1] fol., from the mon-
astery of St Athanasius. Contains Luke and John with scholia:
pict.

*255. Syn. 139 (Mt. 12) [xm] fol., once “Dionysii monachi
rhetoris οὐ amicorum.” Commentaries of Chrysostom and others,
with fragments of the text interspersed.

*256. Typogr. Syn. 3 (Mt. 14) [1x?] fol., scholia on Mark and
Luke, with portions of the text.

*257. Syn. 120 (Mt. 15) is Cod. O, described p. 112.

*258. Cod. Dresdensis (Mt. 17) [xm] 4°, barbarously written :
pict.

*259. Syn. 45 (Mt. a) [x1] fol., from the Iberian monastery,
with a commentary, syn., Hus. t. This is one of Matthaei’s best
manuscripts. His other twenty-two copies contain portions of Chry-
sostom, for which see Chapter Iv.

108 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS

Codd. 260—469 were added to the list by Scholz (see Chapter
v): the very few he professes to have collated thoroughly will be
distinguished by ἢ.

260. Codex Regius 51, Paris [x1] fol., once (like Cod. 309)

* domini du Fresne,” correctly written: pict.

261. Reg. 52 [xrv] fol., once at the monastery of the Fore-
runner at Constantinople (see p. 154, note). Lect., mut. Luke xxiv.
39—53. Matth. i. 1—xi. 1 supplied [x1v] chart.

*262. Reg. 53 [x] fol. syn. Hus. t., with rare readings and
subscriptions like Cod. A (see above, p. 124) and Codd. 300, 376, 428.
263. (Act. 117, Paul. 137, Apoc. 54) Reg. 61 [xu] 4°, Hus.

t. torn, Am., pict. Probably from Asia Minor. It once belonged to
Jo. Hurault Boistaller, as did Codd. 301, 306, 314.

264. Reg. 65 [xu] 4°, with Coptic-like letters, but brought from
the East in 1718 by Paul Lucas. The leaves are misplaced in bind-
ing, as are those of Cod. 272.

265. Reg. 66 [x] 4°, once belonged to Philibert de la Mare.

266. Reg. 67 [x] 4°, syn.

267. Reg. 69 [x] 4°, lect., mut. Matth. i. 1—8; Mark i. 1—7;
Luke i. 1—8; xxiv. 50—John i. 12.

268. Reg. 73 [xu] 4°, Hus. t., syn., pict.

269. Reg. 74 [x1] 4°, pict.

270. Reg. 75 [x1] 8°, syn., with a mixed text.

271. Reg. 75° [x11] 8°, Hus. t., pict.

272. Reg. 76 [x1] 12°, once Melchisedech Thevenot’s.

273. Reg. 79, 4°, on vellum [xm], but partly on cotton paper
[xtv], contains also some scholia, extracts from Severianus’ commen-
tary, annals of the Gospels, Hus. ¢., a list of the Gospel parables,
parts of syn., with a mixed text.

274. Reg. 79* [x] 4°, once belonged to Maximus Panagiotes,
protocanon of the Church at Callipolis (there were many places of
this name: but see Cod. 346). Pict., Hus. t., syn., men., mut. (but
supplied in a later hand, chart.) Mark i. 1—17; vi. 21—54; John
i, 1—20; iii. 18—iv. 1; vii. 23—42; ix. 1O—27; xviii. 12—29.

275. Reg. 80 [x1] 8°, antea Memmianus, Hus. ¢., prol., portions
of syn.

276. Reg. 81 [x1] 8°, written by Nicephorus of the monastery
Meletius: us. t., pict.

277. Reg. 81 A [x1] 8°, Zus. ἐν, pict.: some portions supplied
by a later hand.

278. Reg. 82 [xm] 8°, once Mazarin’s, with Armenian inscrip-
tions, us. t., pict., syn. Matth. xiii. 43—xvii. 5 is in a later hand.

279. Reg. 86 [xm] 12°, this copy and Cod. 294 were brought
from Patmos and given to Louis XIV. in 1686 by Joseph George-
irenus, Archbishop of Samos. Lus. t., syn., pict.

OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 169

ΕἸ 280. Reg. 87 [x11] 8°, parts of syn., prol., mut. Mark viii. 3—xv.
281. Reg. 88 [xu] 8°, Lus. t., pict., mut. Matth. xxviii. 11—20;

Luke i. 1—9. Given to the Monastery “ Deiparae Hieracis” by the
eremite monk Meletius.

282. Reg. 90 [dated 1176] 12°.

283. Reg. 92 [xiv] 8.

284. Reg. 93 [x] 8°, Hus. t., pict., syn. Once Teller’s of
Rheims and Peter Stella’s.

285. Reg. 95 [xv] 8°, pict., once Teller’s: given by Augustin
Justinian to Jo. Tharna of Catana.

286. Reg. 96 [dated April 12, 1432, Indiction 10] 8°, by the
monk Calistus, with the Paschal canon for the years 1432—1502.

287. Reg. 98 [xv] 8°.

288. Reg. 99 [xvi] 8°, chart., once German Brixius’: contains
St Luke only.

289. Reg. 100 A [dated Feb. 15, 1625] fol., chart., written by
Lucas αρχιθυτης.

290. Reg. 108 a [x11] 4°, on cotton paper ; from the Sorbonne: syn.

291. Reg. 113 [xir] 8°, syn.: belonged to one Nicholas.

292. Reg. 114 [x1] 8°, syn., pict., mut. Matth. 1. 1—vi. 14;
John xix. 14—xxi. 25.

293. Reg. 117 [dated Nov. 1373] 16°, syn., pict., written by
Manuel for Blasius a monk.

294. Reg. 118 [xu] 16°, pict., mut. Matth. 1. 18—x‘i. 25.

295. Reg. 120 [xi] 16°, mut. Matth. i. 1—11.

296. Reg. 123 [xvi] 16°, written by Angelus Vergecius (see
p. 38, note 2).

297. Reg. 140 a [x11] 12°, pict., syn.

298. Reg. 175 a [x11] 8°, from the Jesuits’ public library, Lyons:
pict., syn.

*299. Reg. 177 [xt] fol. an accurately written copy with a
mixed text, and scholia which seem to have been written in Syria
by a partisan of Theodore of Mopsuestia: prol., Hus. t., pict. and
other fragments.

*300. Reg. 186 [x1] fol., “olim fonte-blandensis,” (Fontain-
bleau ?) contains the first three Gospels, with subscriptions like that
of Cod. 262. Hus. t., syn., a catena, “ πάρεργα de locis selectis,” and
in the outer margin Theophylact’s Commentary in a later hand.

*301. Reg. 187 [xt] fol., once Boistaller’s, a mixed text with
a Catena.

302. Reg. 193 [xv1] fol. chart., once Mazarin’s: contains frag-
ments of Matthew and Luke with a Commentary.

303. Reg. 194 A [χη] fol. contains vellum fragments of John
i—iv; and on cotton paper, dated 1255, Theophylact’s Commentary
and some iambic verses written by Nicander, a monk.

170 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS

304. Reg. 194 [xm] fol., once Teller’s: contains Matthew and
Mark with a Catena.

305. Reg. 195 [xt] fol., on cotton paper, once Mazarin’s: con-
tains the same as Cod. 304.

306. Reg. 197 [x11] fol., once Boistaller’s, contains Matthew and
John with Theophylact’s Commentary.

307. Reg. 199 [χη fol., contains Matthew and John with a
Commentary.

308. Reg. 200 [x11] fol., once Mazarin’s: mut., contains the same
as Cod. 307.

309. Reg. 201 [xm] fol., once du Fresne’s, has Matthew and
John with Chrysostom’s Commentary, Luke with that of Titus of
Bostra, Mark with Victor’s.

310. Reg. 202 [x1] fol., has Matthew with a Catena, once Col-
bert’s (as also were Codd. 267, 273, 279, 281—3, 286—8, 291, 294,
296, 315, 318—9). Given to St Saba’s monastery by its Provost
Arsenius.

311. Reg. 303 [x1] fol., once Mazarin’s: also has Matthew with
a Catena.

312. Reg. 206 [dated 1308] fol, Mark with Victor's Com-
mentary.

313. Reg. 208 [xrv] fol., chart., mut., once Mazarin’s, contains
Luke with a Catena.

314. Reg. 209 [x11] fol., once Boistaller’s, contains John with
a Commentary.

315. Reg. 210 [xu] fol., has the same contents as Cod. 314.
Mut. John xiv. 25—xv. 16; xxi. 22—25.

316. Reg. 211 [xm] fol., on cotton paper, brought from Con-
stantinople. Contains John and Luke with a Commentary. Jlut.

317. Reg. 212 [xm] fol., “olim Medicaeus” (see p. 94, note 2),
contains John x. 9—xxi. 25 with a Catena.

318. Reg. 213 [xrv] fol., has John vii. 1—xxi. 25 with a Com-
mentary.

319. Reg. 231 [xu] 4°, with a Commentary, mut.

320. Reg, 232 [x1] 4°, has Luke with a Commentary.

321. Reg. 303 [xi] 4°.

322. Reg. 315 [xv] 4°.

323. Reg. 118a [xvi] 4°, contains Matth, vi. vii. and a Greek
version of some Arabic fables.

324. (Evst. 97, Apost. 32) Reg. 376 [xm] 4°, once Mazarin’s,
together with some lessons from the Acts, Kpistles and Gospels,
contains also the Gospels complete, Lus. t., syn. (on cotton paper),
τ and a chronological list of Emperors from Constantine to Manuel
Porphyrogennetus (A.D. 1143).

325. Reg. 377 [xm] 4°.

OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 171

326. Reg. 378 [xrv]| 4°, contains homilies (ἑρμήνεια) on certain
passages or texts (τὸ κείμενον).

327. Reg. 380 [xv] 4°

328. Reg. 381 [xvi] 4°

329. Coislin. 19 [xr] 4°, with a Commentary. Described (as
also Cod. 331) by Montfaucon.

330. (Act. 132, Paul. 131) Coislin 196 [x1] 8°, from Athos.
Lust. t., prol.

331. Coislin. 197 [x11] 4°, once Hector D’ Ailli’s, Bishop of Toul:
syn..

332. Codex Taurinensis xx. b. 1v. 20 [x1] fol., at Turin, prol.,
pict. with a Commentary.

333. Taurin. rv. Ὁ. 4 [xm] fol., on cotton paper, once belonged
to Arsenius, Archb. of Monembasia, in the Morea, then to Gabriel,
metropolitan of Philadelphia: contains Matthew and John with
Nicetas’ Catena.

334. Taurin. 43, Ὁ. v. 23 [xtv] fol. Matthew and Mark with a
Commentary, prol.

335. Taurin. 44, b. v. 24 [xvr] fol., chart., prol.

336. Taurin. 101, ¢.1v. 17 [xvi] fol., chart., Luke with a Catena.

‘337. Taurin. 52, Ὁ. v. 32 [x11] fol., parts of Matthew with a
Commentary.

338. Taurin. 335, b. 1. 3 [xu] 12°, Hus. ¢., pict.

339. (Act. 135, Paul. 170, Apoc. 83) Taurin. 302, ¢. τι. 5 [x1]
4°, prol., Hus. t., syn., and other matter.

340. Taurin. 344, Ὁ. τ. 13 [x1]?, with many later corrections.

341. Taurin. 350, b. 1. 21 [dated 1296] 4°, written by Nicetas
Mauron, a reader: syn.

342. Taurin. 149, b. τι. 3 [x1] 4°, Hus. ¢.

343. Codex Ambrosianus 13 [xir] 12°, at Milan, written by one
Antony ; lect., Hus. t., pict.

344. Ambros. 16 [x1] 12°, syn., mut. John xxi. 12—25. But
Luke xiii. 21—xvi. 23; xxi. 12[?]; xxii. 12—23; xxiii. 45—50? are
[xiv] chart.

345. Ambros. 17 [x1] 12°, syn., mut. Matth. i. 1—11.

*346. Ambros. 23 [xu] 4°, carelessly written, with unusual
readings. JJué. John 111. 6—vi. 52. Bought in 1606 at Gallipoli in
Calabria.

347. Ambros. 35 [xu] 8°, prol., lect., correctly written by Con-
stantine Chrysographus.

348. Ambros. B. 56 [dated 29 December, 1023] 8°, once “J. V.
Pinelli,” syn., Hus. t.

349. Ambros. 61 [dated 1322] 8°, chart., bought at Corfu;
syn., pret.

350. Ambros. B. 62 [x1] 8°, pict., syn. The first four leaves
[xvi] chart. Mut, John xxi. 9—25.

351. Ambros. 70 [xt] 4°, with a Latin version [xv] in many places.

172 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS

352. Ambros. B. 93 [xu] 4°, brought from Calabria, 1607 ; mud.
Matth. i. 1—17; Mark i. 1—15; xvi. 13—20; Lukei. 1—7; xxiv.
43—53; Johni. 1—10; xxi. 3—25. Lesson-marks were placed in
the margin, and the faded ink retouched [xrv].

353. Ambros. M. 93 [xu] 4°, with the same Commentary as
Cod. 181. fut. Johu xxi. 24, 25.

354. Venet. 29 [xr] 4°, at Venice, Matthew with Theophylact’s
Commentary.

355. Venet. 541 [x1] 8°, Carp., Lus. t.

356. Venet. 545 [xvi] 4°, chart., contains Titus of Bostra’s
Catena on Luke, the text of which is occasionally cited.

357. Venet. 28 [x1] fol., Luke and John with a Catena.

358. Mautinensis 9 (π. A. 9) [xrv] 8°, at Modena.

359. Mautin. 242 (m1. B. 16) [xrv] 4°.

360. Cod. de Rossi 1, at Parma [x1] 4°, with an unusual text,
collated by de Rossi, who once possessed this codex and

361. De Rossi 2 [xm] 12%

362. At Florence, Cod. Biblioth. 5. Mariae [x1] fol., Luke with
a Catena. Text written in red. This copy, now missing, is cited,
like Codd. 201, 370, by Jo. Lamy, De eruditione Apostolorwm, Florent.
1738, p. 239.

363. (Act. 144, Paul. 180) Laurent. νι. 13 [xm] 4°, at Florence.

364, Laurent. vi. 24 [xm] 8°, the style of the characters re-
sembles Sclavonic: some leaves at the beginning and end [xrv].

365. (Act. 145, Paul. 181) Laurent. vi. 36 [xm] 4°, contains
also the Psalms.

366. Laurent. 2607, from 8S. Maria’s [x11] fol., Matthew written
in red, with a Catena. fut. at the beginning, with many later mar-

δ᾽

ginal notes. ‘This is evidently a portion of the lost Cod. 362.

367. (Act. 146, Paul. 182) Laurent. 2708, also from St Maria’s
[dated 26 Decembr. 1332] 4°, chart., written by one Mark, syn.
Scholz says “N. T. continet,” but the Apocalypse seems wanting.

368. (Act. 150, Paul. 230, Apoc. 84, Apost. 37) Cod. Rich-
ardian. 84, also at Florence, ‘‘olim Cosmae Oricellarii e¢ amicorum”
(see Cod. 255) [xv] 8°, chart., contains St John’s Gospel, the Apo-
calypse, the Epistles and lessons from them, with Plato’s Epistles,
carelessly written.

369. Richard. 90 [x1] 4°, contains Mark vi. 25—ix. 45; x. 17—
xvi. 9[1], with a Greek Grammar and Phaedrus’ fables.

370. Richard. Plut. K. τ. n. 11 [xiv] fol., chart., with Theophy-
lact’s Commentary, mut. at beginning and end. Described by Lamy
(see Cod, 362) p. 232, but now missing.

371. Vatican. 1159 [x] 4°, Hus. t., pict.

372. Vat. 1161 [xv] 4°, ends John iii. 1. Beautifully written.

373. Vat. 1423 [xv] fol., chart., “olim Cardinalis Sirleti,” with
a Catena, mut. in fine,

OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. {78

914. Vat. 1445 [xn] fol., with the commentary of Peter of
Laodicea. In 1211 one John procured it from Theodosiopolis; there
were at least five cities of that name, three of them in Asia Minor.

375. Vat. 1533 [xi] 8°, Hus. ἐ.

376. Vat. 1539 [x1] 16°, given by Francis Accidas. With sub-
scriptions resembling those of Codd. A, 262, 300.

377. Vat. 1618 [xv] fol., chart., Matthew with a Catena, the
other Gospels with questions and answers.

378. Vat. 1658 [xiv] fol., portions from Matthew with Chry-
sostom’s Homilies, and from the prophets.

379. Vat. 1769 [xv] fol., chart., with a Commentary.

380. Vat. 2139 [xv] 4°, chart., Eus. t.

381. Palatino-Vat. 20. [xiv] fol., chart., Luke with a Catena.

382. Vat. 2070 [xm] 4°, “olim Basil.,” carelessly written, frag-
ments of John and Luke are placed by the binder before Matthew
and Mark. Much is lost.

383, 384, 385, are all Collegii Romani [xvi] 4°, chart. with a
Commentary.

386. (Act. 151, Paul. 199, Apoc. 70) Vat. Ottobon. 66 [xv]
fol., syn., once “Jo, Angeli ducis ab Altamps,” as also Codd. 388,
389, 390, Paul. 202.

387. Vat. Ottobon. 204 [xm] 4°.

388. Vat. Ottobon. 212 [xm] 4°, pict., once belonged to Alexius
and Theodora.

389. Vat. Ottobon. 297 [xr] 8°.

390. (Act. 164, Paul. 203, Apoc. 71) Vat. Ottobon. 381 [dated
1252] 4°, with scholia, syn., Hus. ¢., wasin a Church at Scio a.p. 1359.

391. Vat. Ottobon. 432 [x1, dated 13 April, Indiction 8] 4°,
prol., with a Commentary. Given to Benedict XIII. (1724—30)
by Abachum Andriani, an abbot of Athos. Matth. i. 1—8; Luke i;
Jo. vii. 53—viii. 11 were written [xv].

392. Barberin. 225 is the cursive portion of Cod. Y [x11] fol.,
with Theophylact’s Commentary. See above, p. 119.

393, (Act. 167, Paul. 185) Vallicell. Ἐς 22 [xv1] 4°, chart.

394. (Act. 170, Paul. 186) Vallicell. F. 17 [dated 4 July, 1330,
Indict. 13] 4°, chart. written by Michael, a priest.

395. Cod. Biblioth. S. Mariae supra Minervam, seu Casana-
tensis A. R. V. 33 [x11] 4°, at Rome, pict., with marginal corrections,
bought about 1765.

396. Cod. Ghigianus, at Rome, R. rv. 6 [xir] 4°, begins Matth.
xxiii. 27.

397. Vallicell. C. 4 [xv] fol., chart. John with a Catena (de-
scribed by Blanchini).

398. Taurin. 92. c. Iv. 6 [xm]? select passages with a Catena.

399. Taurin. 109. ὁ. 1v. 29 [xv]? chart. Commentary, sometimes
without the text.

114 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS

400. (Act. 181, Paul. 220) Cod. Biblio. Berolinensis, “olim
Diezii” [xv] 12°, mwt., damaged by fire and water, contains Matth.
xii. 29—xill. 2; and the Acts and Epistles, except Act. 1. 11—ii.
11; Rom. i. 1—27; 1 Cor. xiv. 12—xv. 46; 2 Cor. 1. 1—8; v.
4—19; 1 Tim. iv. 1—Hebr. i. 9. This copy belonged to Henry
Benzil, Archbishop of Upsal, then to Laurence Benzelstierna, Bishop
of Arosen: it was described by C. Aurivill (1802), collated by G. T.
Pappelbaum (1815).

401. Cod. Neapolit. 1. C. 24 [x1] 4°, contains Matthew, Mark
vi. 1—xvi. 20, Luke, John i. 1—xii. 1.

402. Neapolit. 1. C. 28 [xv] 8°, prol., pict.

403. Neapolit. 1. C. 29 [x11] 8°, on cotton paper, syn. Contains
Matth. xii. 23—xix. 12; 28—xxviii. 20 (?); Mark, Luke i. 1—v.
21; 36—xxiv. 53 (?); John 1. 1—xviii. 36.

404. Cod. “ Abbatis Scotti” of Naples [x1] 8°, prol.

405. Venetian. Bibl. Cl. τ. n. x [x1] 4°, “olim Nanian. 3, antea
monasteril SS. Cosmae et Damiani urbis Prusiensis,’ i.e. Brusa.
Eus. t., the leaves utterly disarranged by the binder. (Wiedmann
and J. G. J. Braun collated portions of 405—417 for Scholz).

406. Venet. 1. 11, Nanian. 4 [x1] 8°, mut. Mark iv. 41—v. 14;
Luke iii. 16—iv. 4.

407. Venet.1. 12, Nanian. 5 [x1] 8°, contains Luke v. 30—Johnix.

408. Venet. S. Marci Bibl. 1. 14, Nanian. 7 [xm] 4°, Zus.t.,
once belonged to St John’s monastery, by the Jordan.

409. Venet. 1.15, Nanian. 8 [x1] 4°, Zus. t., syn., with many
errors and rare readings.

410, Venet. 1. 17, Nanian. 10 [xu or χιν] 4°, written by one
Joasaph a monk, on cotton paper, but Hus. ¢. [x11] on parchment.

411. Venet. Nanian. 11 [xtv] 8°, Hus. t., syn.

412. Venet. 1 19, Nanian. 12 [dated 1301] 4°, written by
Theodore (see p. 37, note 2). Hus. t., syn.

413. Venet. τ. 20, Nanian. 13 [dated 1302, Indiction 15] 4°,
once belonged to St Catherine’s monastery on Sinai, where Cod. &
was found, and is elegantly written by one Theodosius. Zus. t.,
pict., syn.

414. Venet. 1. 21, Nanian. 14 [χιν] 4°, syn., written by Philip,
a monk,

415, Venet. τ. 22, Nanian. 15 [dated January 1356] 8°, syn., pict.

416. Venet. τ. 24, Nanian. 17 [xrv] 4°, begins Matth. xxv. 35,
ends John xviii. 7.

417, Venet. τ. 25, Nanian. 18 [xrv] 4°, contains the first three
Gospels, mut. at the beginning and end.

418, Venet. Nanian. 21 [1] 8°, chart., contains Matthew and
Mark, mut. at the end.

419. A codex formerly at St Michael’s, Venice, “ prope Muria-
num” 241, [x1] 4°, ends John xxi. 7 (deseribed by J. B. Mittarelli,
Venice 1779). See also Eyst. 143.

OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. I

420. (Schulz’s 237) Cod. Messanensis 1 [xiv] 4°, by different
hands, with readings from other copies (inspected by Munter, as was
Cod. 421),

421. (Act. 176, Paul. 218) Cod. Syracusanus [xm] ?, once Lan-
dolini’s; prol., Hus. t., is Schulz’s 238.

422. Reg. Monacensis 210, at Munich [xr] 4°, lect., prol., syn.,
written by the monk Joseph, but St John in a later hand (described
by Ignatius Hardt).

423. Monacensis 36 [xv] fol., chart. contains Matthew with
Nicetas’ Catena.

424, Monacensis 83 [xv] fol., chart., contains Luke with the
commentary of Titus of Bostra and others.

425. Monacensis 37 [xv] fol., chart., contains John with a very
full Catena of Nicetas.

426. Monacensis 473, once Augsburg 9 [xiv] 4°, on cotton
paper, contains Luke vi. 17—xi. 26 with Nicetas’ Catena, the second
of four volumes (δεύτερον τῶν τεσσάρων τεῦχος τῶν εἰς TO κατὰ Λουκᾶν
ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ συναγωγὴν ἐξηγήσεων).

427. Monacensis 465, Augsburg 10 [χπ 1] 4°, written by one
Maurus, contains Luke and Mark with Theophylact’s Commentary,

428. Monacensis 381, Augsburg 11 [x11] fol., on cotton paper,
so like Cod. 300 as to be a copy from it, or taken from the same
manuscripts; with subscriptions like Codd. 262 &e. pict., a Com-
mentary We.

429. Monacensis 208 [dated but a few years later than Cod.
14, June 20, a.p. 978, Indiction 6] 4°, written by John a priest
and “ ἔκδικος magnae ecclesiae,” contains Luke i. 1—ii. 39 with a
Catena, questions and answers from Matthew and John, with the
text. See above, p. 36, note 2.

430. Monacensis 437 [x1] 4°, contains John with the Catena
of Nicetas, metropolitan of Heraclia Serrarum (in Macedonia, now
Xevosna). Martin Crusius of Tubingen procured it from Leontius,
a Cyprian monk, in 1590, and sent it to the library at Augsburg.

431. (Act. 180, Paul. 238.). Cod. Molsheimensis [xu] 12°,
prol., Hus. t., with many unusual readings, was brought to Strasburg
from the Jesuits’ College at Molsheim in Alsace, extracts made
by the Jesuit Hermann Goldhagen (N. T. Mogunt. 1753), and col-
lated by Arendt, 1833.

432. Monacensis 99 [xvi] fol., chart., contains Mark with
the Commentary of Victor of Antioch.

433. Cod. Bibl. Berolinensis is Schulz’s 239 [x1] 4°, brought
from the East by W. Ern. de Knobelsdorf, with a mixed text and
many errors. It contains Matth. 1. 1—21; vi. 12—32; xxi. 25—
xxvii. 20; Mark i. 1—v. 29; ix. 21—xii. 12; Luke viii. 27—
John ix. 21; xx. 15—xxi. 25. (G. T. Pappelbaum, 1824).

434. Caesar. Vindobon. 71, Lambec. 42 [xiv] fol., contains
Luke with a Catena. Like Codd. 218, &. bought at Constantinople
by Busbeck.

176 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS

° 435. Cod. Gronovii 131, at Leyden, is Schulz’s 245 [1] 4°, mut.
Matth. 1. 20—ii. 13; xxii. 4—9 (John x. 14—xxi. 25 in a rather
later hand), has a somewhat unusual text (collated, as also Cod. 122,
by J. Dermout, Collectanea Critica in N. T. 1825).

436. Cod. Meermann. 117, last traced to some English book-
seller, in 1824, described by Montfaucon, Palaeograph. Graec. p. 295,
when in the Library of the Jesuits’ College of Louis XIV. lect. See
above, p. 158, note.

437. Cod. Petropolit. [x1], like Cod. E. of the Epistles, one leaf
of the Colbert Pentateuch, and some other manuscripts, has found
its way from the Coislin library and the Abbey of St Germain des
Prez near Paris, to St Petersburg. It was written by Michael
Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and noticed by Matthaei
(N. T. um p. 99, 2nd ed.).

438. Cod. Mus. Brit. 5111—2. (Askew 621) [x1] 4°, two vols.
(Bloomfield).

439. Mus. Brit. 5107 (Askew 622) [dated April 1159, Ind. 7] fol.,
written by the monk Nepho, at Athos. Carp., Lus. t., xed. t., pict.,
τίτλ., κεφ., Am., Hus. (Bloomfield).

440. (Act. 111, Paul. 221) University Library, Cambridge, 2423
(Mm. 6. 9) is the copy from which Griesbach’s readings in Cod. 236
were derived. Described below under Scrivener’s v.

441, 442, at Cambridge, must be removed from Scholz’s list;
they are printed editions with manuscript notes. Cod. 441 is Act.
110, Paul. 222; Cod. 442 is Act. 152, Paul. 223.

443. University Libr. Cambridge, 2512 (Nn. 2. 36), once Askew
624,’ [x1 or xt] 4°, Carp., Eus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλ., Am., Hus., syn,
prol.

444, (Act. 153, Paul. 240) Cod. Harleian. 5796 [xv] 4°, neatly
written, syv., sold in 1537 “aspris 500 :°” bought at Smyrna in 1722
by Bernard Mould. .

445. Harleian. 5736 [dated 1506] chart., in the hand “ Antonii
cujusdam eparchi,” once (like Apoc. 31) in the Jesuits’ College,
Agen, on the Garonne.

446. Harl. 5777 [xv] 4°, syn. Mut. Matth. i. 1—17; Mark i.
7—9; Luke i. 1—18; John i*1—22 by a person who mischievously
cut out the ornaments. It is clearly but unskilfully written, and
Covell states on the outer leaf that it seems a copy from his manu-
script, noted above as Cod. 65, This copy is Cov. 5 (Bloomfield).

1 Scholz has a great deal to answer for in the way of negligence, but he does
not deserve the imputation brought against him in the Catalogue of the Cambridge
Manuscripts (Vol. 111. p. 310), of guessing Askew to be a College there. Cod. 443
was bought for the University Library in 1775 for £20, at the celebrated book-sale
of Anthony Askew [1722—74], the learned physician who projected an edition
of Aischylus. See Marsh on Michaelis, Vol. 11. pp. 661—2.

2 The asper or asprum was a mediwval Greek silver coin (derived from agmpos,
albus): we may infer its value from a passage cited by Ducange from Vincentius
Bellovac. xxx. 75 “‘quindecim drachmas seu asperos,”

OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. ΤῊ

447. Harl. 5784 [xv] Hus. t., men., well written, and much like

448. Harl. 5790 [dated Rome, 25 April, 1478] fol., pict., ele-
gantly written by John a priest for Francis Cardinal of S. Maria nova.

449. Mus. Brit. 4950—1 [xi] 12°, 2 vol., clearly and carefully
written: once Caesar de Missy’s (see Cod. 44). Prol., κεφ. t., τίτλ.,
Am., Hus., men., syn.

450. Codex 1 in the great Greek Monastery at Jerusalem [dated
1 July 1043] 8°, syn., Hus. t., neatly written by the reader Euphemius,
contains the first three Gospels with an Arabic version. This is
Mr Coxe’s No. 6, but he calls it 4°, and speaks of it as ‘containing
only St Luke’s Gospel.

451. Jerusalem 2 [x11] 8° 452. Jerus. 3 [xv] 8°.

453. Jerus. 4 [xrv] 8°. 454. Jerus. 5 [xiv] 8°.

455. Jerus. 6 [xiv] 4°, with a Commentary.

456. Jerus. 7 [xi] 4°, Matthew is neatly written with a Com-
mentary, in golden uncial letters (Coxe, No. 43, who dates it [x1])."

457. (Act. 186, Paul. 234) Codex 2 in the Monastery of St Saba
(a few miles from Jerusalem, near the Dead Sea) [x11] 4°, syn., men.

458. St Saba 3 [dated 1272, Indict. 15] 16°.

459. St Saba 7 [xi] 8°. 460. St Saba 8 [xm] 8°.

461. St Saba 9 [dated, si qua fides Scholzio, May 7, a. pv. 835,
Indict. 13] 8°, neatly written by Nicholas, a monk.

462, (Act. 187, Paul. 235, Apoc. 86) St Saba 10 [x1v] 4°.

463. St Saba 11 [xrv] 4°, chart.

464. St Saba 12 [x1] 4°, chart. 465. St Saba 19 [x1] 8°.

466. (Act. 189, Paul. 237, Apoc. 86° or 89) St Saba 20 [x11] 8°.’

467. Codex of a monastery at Patmos [x1] 4°.

468. Another at Patmos [x11] 8°, with a Commentary.

469. Another as Patmos [xiv] 4°.

Of this whole list of 210 manuscripts, Scholz collated five entire
(262. 299. 300. 301. 346), eleven in the greatest part (260. 270. 271.
277. 284. 285. 298. 324. 353. 382. 428), many in a few places,
and not a few seem to have been left untouched.

1 Mr Coxe (Report to Her Majesty’s Government of the Greek Manuscripts yet
remaining in the Libraries of the Levant, 1858) saw fourteen copies of the Gospels
in this Monastery: as I can identify but two of them with Scholz’s Codd. 450—
450, they must be described below, p. 185, only that we may be sure that Scholz’s
451—5 are included somewhere in Mr Coxe’s list.

? At Mar Saba Mr Coxe found no less than twenty copies of the Gospels, four
of them being of the roth century (Report p. 12), with a noble palimpsest of the
Orestes and Phoenissae. Here again I must repeat his list (below p. 185), as I
cannot satisfactorily reconcile his account with Scholz’s.

3 At Patmos Coxe saw but five copies of the Gospels: No. 6 [x] 4°, syn.,
probably Scholz’s 467; No. 2 [x11] 4°, with scholia, perhaps Scholz’s 468; and
No. 21 [x11] fol., which may be Scholz’s 469,

178 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS

The following additions must be made to the above list: we have
adopted the notation employed by Tischendorf, N. T. 7th edition.

Edward de Muralt in his N. T. ‘ad fidem codicis principis Vati-
cani,” 1848, inserts a collation of eleven manuscripts (five of them
being Lectionaries), chiefly at St Petersburg.

1’, (Petropol. rv. 13) some fragments of Evangelistaria. [1x].

2», (Petrop. vi. 470), the Gospels [1x], a very important copy,
especially in St Mark.

3°, Lectionary [x], of the Gospels (Petr. va. 179) and Praxa-
postolos (Petr. vim. 80).

4°. The Gospels at Moscow, (Mich. Petridae Pogodini 472) [xm
or xu].

ὄν Psalter (Petr. rx. 1) with the hymns Luke i. 46—55; 68—
79; ii. 29—32 [dated 994].

6". Evangelistarium (Petr. x. 180) [dated Salernum, 1022].

7”. (Petr. 1x. 3. 471) the Gospels, a valuable copy [dated 1062].

8, (Petr. x1. 1. 2. 330) Gospels, Acts and Epistles [x1].

9°, (Petr. x1. 3. 181) fragments of an Evangelistarium [x1].

10. An Evangelistarium of Palaeologus, Panticapaeense [of
Kertch?], collated at Odessa.

11°. Gospels (Q. v. 1, 15.) [xv].

F. H. Scrivener has published the following in his “Collation of
Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels 1853,” and ‘Codex Augi-
ensis”” (Appendix) 1859.

a", Archiepiscopal Library, Lambeth 1175 [x1] 4°, xed. t., lect.,
κεφ., Am., Hus., mut. Matth. i. 1—13; once at Constantinople, but
brought (together with the next five) from the Greek Archipelago
by J. D. Carlyle, Professor of Arabic at Cambridge [d. 1804].

be", Lamb. 1176 [xu] small 4°, very elegant: Carp., Eus. t.,
pict., lect., κεφ. t. (these last chart.) τίτλοι, Am., Hus., syn. A copy
‘‘eximiae notae,” but with many corrections by a later hand, and
some foreign matter.

ec", Lamb. 1177 [xm] 4°, for valuable readings by far the most
important at Lambeth, shamefully ill written, torn and much muti-
lated’: perhaps not all by the same hand. Κεῴ. ¢., (a fragment),
τίτλοι, Am., lect., portions of syn.

a". Lamb. 1178 [x1] large 4°, in a fine hand, splendidly il-
luminated, and with much curious matter in the subscriptions (see

1 Matth, iv. 1—vii. 6; xx. 21—xxi, 12; Luke iv. 29g—v. 1; 17—33; xvi. 24
—xvii. 13; xx. 19—41; John vi. 51—viii, 2 ; xii. 20—40; xiv. 27—xv. 13; xvii.
9—xviii. 2; xvili. 37—xix. 14.

OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 179

Ρ. 56). Mut. Matth. i. 1—8. Syn., men., κεφ. t., and the other usual
divisions. A noble-looking copy.

e", Lamb. 1179 [x] 4°, neatly written but in wretched condition
beginning Matth. xiii. 53, ending John xiii. 8. Also mut. Matth.
xvi. 28—xvii. 18; xxiv. 39—xxv. 9; xxvi. 71—xxvii. 14; Mark
vill. 32—ix. 9; John xi. 8—30. Carlyle brought it from Trinity
Monastery, Chalké. Κεφ. t., lect., τίτλοι, Am., Lus.

f*", Lamb. 1192 [xi] large 4°, from Syria, beautifully written,
but tampered with by a later hand. Mut. John xvi. 8—22, and a
later hand [xv] has supplied Mark iii. 6—21; Luke xii. 48—xiii. 2;
John xviii. 27—xxi. 25. Keg. ἐ., τίτλοι, Am. Hus., lect., pict.; at
the beginning stand some texts, περὶ ἀνεξικακίας. (Re-examined by
Bloomfield.)

g, is Lamb. 528 and Cod. 71, described above.

h**, Cod. Arundel 524 in the British Museum, [x1] 4°, was
brought to England (with x** and many others) by the great Earl of
Arundel in 1646. Syn., men., Carp., Hus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλοι, Am.,
Lus., lect.

i, Cod. Trin. Coll. Cantab. B. x. 17 [xu] 4°, from Athos,
bequeathed to Trinity College by Bentley. Keg. #., τίτλοι, κεφ.,
Am. (not Hus.), lect., and (on paper) are ὑπόθεσις to St Matthew
and syn.

j*. See above Cod. N.

Κὶς Cod. Lebanon, Mus. Brit. 11300 [x1] 4°, most elegantly
and correctly written, purchased in 1838, and said to come from
Caesarea Philippi at the foot of Lebanon. Contains scholia, lect., no
syn., but all other matter as in Cod. h: the text is broken up into
paragraphs. (Re-examined by Bloomfield.)

Is", (Act. and Paul. g**) Cod. Wordsworth [xm] 4°, was bought
in 1837 by Dr Christopher Wordsworth, Canon of Westminster, and
bears a stamp “ Bibliotheca Suchtelen.” Ked. t., τίτλοι, Am., lect.,
syn., men., prol. or ὑποθέσεις are prefixed to the Epistles, and scholia
of Chrysostom, &ec. set in the margin.

m*", See above Cod. 201. (Re-examined by Bloomfield.)

n*, (Paul. j°*) Brit. Mus., Burney 18 (purchased in 1818, with
many other manuscripts, from the heirs of Dr Charles Burney), con-
tains the Gospels and two leaves of St Paul (Hebr. xii. 17—xiii. 25),
written by one Joasaph Α. Ὁ. 1366, fol., very superb, lect., κεφ. ¢.
(but not τίτλοι), Am., Hus., some foreign matter, αποστολοευαγγε-
Ava, and syn. or men., both terms being used. Codd. lmn agree pretty
closely.

οἷν Brit. Mus. Burney 19 [x] 4°: (see p. 37, and Plate m1, No.
8c), in the Escurial as late as 1809, singularly void of the usual
apparatus.

p. Burney 20 [dated a.p. 1285, Indict. 13, altered into 985,
whose indiction is the same] 4°, written by a monk Theophilus:
pict., Hus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλοι, Am., Hus., lect., syn., men., the last in
a later hand, which has made many corrections: this copy is next in
value to Cod. ο.

eer)

180 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS

q**. (Act. and Paul. f**) Codex Theodori, from the name of the
scribe (see p. 37, note 2) [dated 1295] 8°, passed from Caesar de Missy
into the Duke of Sussex’s Library: in 1845 it belonged to the late
Wm. Pickering, the much-respected bookseller. Syn., Carp., Lus. t.,
κεφ. t., κεφ., Am., lect., ὑποθέσεις or prol., and syn. before Act. and all
Epp., Euthalius περὶ χρόνων, men. after Jude; it has many later
changes made in the text.

r", Burney 21, by the same scribe [dated 1292] fol., on cotton
paper in a beautiful but formed hand (see p. 37, and Plate v1, No.
15), syn., prol. to each Gospel, xed. t., men. Codd. qr differ in 183
places.

s, Burney 23 [x11] 4°, boldly but carelessly written, ends John
viii. 14: mut. Luke v. 22—ix. 32; xi. 31—xiii. 25; xvii. 24—-xviii. 4.
Syn., Carp., κεφ. t., pict., Am. (not Hus.), τίτλοι, with many later
changes and weighty readings.

ἐπ Lambeth 1350 [x1v] St John on paper, written with a reed
(see p. 24), appended to a copy of John Damascene “De Fide
Orthodoxa”: has ὑπόθεσις or prol., κεφ., and a few rubrical direc-
tions; carelessly written, and inscribed “ΤΠ. Wagstaffe ex dono Ὁ.
Barthol. Cassano e sacerdotibus ecclesiae Graecae, Oct. 20, 1732.”

u“, C.4 of Archdeacon Todd’s Lambeth Catalogue, was a copy
of the Gospels, in the Carlyle collection, restored with six others in
1817 to the Patriarch of Jerusalem at Constantinople’. The collation
of Matthew and Mark by the Rev. G. Bennet is at Lambeth (1255,
No. 25).

wv, Lambeth 1180 [xtv] chart., τίτλοι, Am., Hus., lect., with
important variations: restored like Cod. u, but previously collated by
Dr Charles Burney in Mark i. 1—iv. 16; John vii. 53—viii. 11
(Lambeth 1223),

v' (Evan. 440, Act. 111, Paul. 221 of Scholz, Evan. 236; Act.
and Paul. 61 of Griesbach ; Act. and Paul. o**) is Mm. 6, 9 of the Cam-
bridge University Library [x] 4°, in a minute hand, with many un-
usual readings, especially in the Epistles (see above Cod. 236), from Bp.
Moore’s Library. Hus. t., syn. (later), τίτλοι, Am. (not Lus.), lect., ὑπο-
θέσεις to most of the Epistles: beautifully written with many con-
tractions. .

w*", (Act. and Paul. k**) Trin. Coll. Cantab. B. x. 16 [dated 1316]
4° chart., was inelegantly written by a monk James on Mount Sinai.
Κεφ. t., Am. Lus., κεφ.» lect., prol. and ὑποθέσεις to the Epistles,
syn., men., and much extraneous matter.

1 In Mr Coxe’s Report to Her Majesty's Government, we find an account
(which illness compelled him to give at second hand) of several copies of the
Gospels and one palimpsest Evangelistarium, all dated [x11], still remaining in
this Prelate’s Library. Here doubtless all the restored Carlyle books might be
found, and their examination would well employ the leisure of some scholar
attached to our Embassy at Constantinople.

OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 181

The following, among many other manuscripts of the Gospels,
as yet entirely uncollated, may be added to the catalogue.

tisch’. Cod. Tischendorfianus Iv in the University Library at
Leipsic [x], described in his Anecdota sacra et profana, pp. 20—29.

tisch*. at St Petersburgh [xu] 4°, mut., Notitia Cod. Sinait. °
Ρ. 60.

tisch®. ibid. p. 64, [x11] 4°, only 19 leaves, containing Mark viii.
3—ix. 50, also at St Petersburg.

Middle-Hill 13975, once Lord Strangford’s, now Sir Th. Phil-
lipps’ [x11] fol., a noble copy, the text surrounded with a full com-
mentary in very minute letters.

To G. Haenel (Catal. Librorum MSS. Lips. 1830) we owe our
knowledge of Codex Atrebatensis of the whole New Testament at
Arras [xv] 8°, of another at Poictiers fol., chart.; another he states
to be at Carpentras, in uncial letters [v1!] 4°, which Tischendorf dis-
covered to be the Evangelistarium he designates as carp’. [1x].

Haenel has also made known to us most of the following: a vellum
copy of St John in the Royal Institute at Paris; two copies of the
Gospels [x1], in the Hunterian Museum at Glasgow, marked Q. 122,
123, and once Caesar de Missy’s: another of St John (with other
matter) at the same place 8. 8. 141 [xv], all 4°; a copy of the Gospels at
Toledo [xiv] 4°; and another in the University Library at Edinburgh
[x1] 8°, xed. ὁ., pict., in bad condition, brought from the East, and
presented in 1650 by Sir John Chiesley.

Scholz also copies from Jo. Lamy’s “ Deliciae eruditorum,” Florence
1743, the class-marks of seven manuscripts from some unknown
library (vaguely conjectured to be at Trinity Monastery, Chalké, an
island ten miles from Constantinople, whence Lambeth 1179 or οἷς
came), whereof one (207) contains the Gospels, Acts and Epistles,
another (201) very ancient, Matthew and Mark with a Catena, five
(202—206) the Gospels alone. Dr Millingen, however, has recently
printed a catalogue of the Library at Chalké, which contains eight
copies of the Gospels (I—6; 19; 20), four being bound in silver.

Tischendorf (N. T. 7th edn. Proleg. p. ccxxiv. note 1) names a
copy of the Gospels dated 1254, at St Geneviéve’s in Paris, 4. A. 34.
This, however, seems to be Cod. 121, which Scholz reported as
missing : though the date is a little different (see p. 158).

Of the seven Cambridge manuscripts, enumerated by Scholz (N. T.
Vol. 1. p. exix), we find that c)= Evan. 60, e)= Evan 62, f)=Evan. 70:
g) seems No. 2154, a Latin version of St John with a gloss: d) No.
1673 is Hh. 6. 12, the four Gospels only [xv] 4°, chart., κεφ. t., prol.
For a)b) Lowes, formerly Askew, memb. 4°, Gospels, Marsh on
Michaelis, Vol. τι. p. 662, states that they were sold to Mr Lowes, the
bookseller, at Askew’ sale (see p. 176, note 1), and are now lost
sight of’.

* We have now traced from Askew’s sale Codd. 109, 438, 439, 443 of the
Gospels, and the two volumes in the same hand Act. 22, Paul. 75. But besides

182 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS

The Parham copies of the Gospel are described in a “Catalogue
of materials for writing, early writings on tablets and stones, rolled
and other Manuscripts and Oriental Manuscript books in the library
of Robert Curzon at Parham,” fol. 1849, and were slightly inspected
by Scrivener in 1855. They are eight. Greek, vellum, No. 6.
Gospels, Acts and all the Epistles [x1] 8°, from Caracalla on Athos,
with arabesques in red. No. 7. Gospels [1x or x] small 4", pict., from
St Saba. No. 8. Gospels [x1] 4°, with a marginal paraphrase and
other matter, from tov ἕενοφου on Athos. No. 9. Gospels [x1] 4°,
with faded red arabesques, from Caracalla. No. 10. Gospels με 8°,
pict., from Caracalla. No. 11. Gospels [x11] 8°, from St Saba, as are
the next two. No. 12. Gospels [x11] 8°, with red arabesques. No.
13. Gospels [dated 1272] 12°, of which the Catalogue contains a fac-
simile.

In addition to Codd. 73, 74 (see p. 152 and note) Gaisford in
1837 catalogued, and Scrivener in 1861 inspected the following
fourteen copies of the Gospels in the collection of Archbishop Wake,
now at Christ Church, Oxford.

No. 12 (Apoe. 26, Apostol. 57) [x1] large folio, was also noted by
Scholz, on Gaisford’s information, Evangelistarium 187: but this is
an error, as the Gospels are contained at full length and in their
proper order, with unusually full liturgical matter, rubro, Bus. t.,
κεφ. t., τίτλ., Am., Lus., pict. A Lectionary of the Acts and Epis-
tles follows them, and last of all comes the Apocalypse.

No. 21 [x1] fol, brought from Παντοκράτωρ on Athos, 1727.
Prol., Carp. (later); but prima manu, Hus. t., κεφ. t., lect., titr., κεφ.,
Am., Eus., the last written in the same line with dm., not beneath
them as usual (compare Cod. 112). The scribe’s name, Abraham
Teudatus, a Patrician (Montf. Palaeo. Gr. p. 46), is written cruciform
after Hus. t.

No. 22 [xu ?] small fol., in a wretched hand and bad condition,
begins Matth. i. 23, ends John xix. 31. Κεφ. t, Am. (not Lus.);
lect., but partly in a later hand.

No. 24 [x1] fol., from Παντοκράτωρ in 1727. Lus. t., prol., κεφ. t.,
pict., τίτλ., κεφ., Am., Hus. in gold. One leaf (John xix. 13—29),
and another containing John xxi. 24, 25, are in duplicate at the
beginning, prima manu. This copy (as Wake remarks) is in the
same style, but less free than

No. 25 [x or x1] 4°, pict. (in red ink, nearly faded), κεῴ. t., lect.,
syn., κεφ., and besides them another system of chapters, of which
there are 116 in Matthew, 71 in Mark, 114 in Luke, 67 in John.
The numbers given in Cod. 56 (see p. 148) are very similar.

the two missing Lowes copies, the priced sale catalogue mentions another manu-
script of the Gospels, 2 vol. 12mo, No. 619, bought for £5. 108. by Dr Farmer, who
usually purchased for the Cambridge University Library, which does not appear
to have been deposited there.

OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 183

No. 27, chart. 8°. Matth. xviii. 9—Mark xiv. 13; Luke vii. 4—
John xxi. 13 are [xu], the rest supplied [xv]. Lect., κεφ. t., τίτλ.,
κεφ., Am., (not Hus.).

No. 28 [xrv] 4°, κεφ. t., τίτλ., κεφ. (not Am., Hus.) syn., lect., much
of this in rubro. Subscribed Θὺ τὸ dwpov και γρηγοριου πονος.

No. 29 [dated «χ'λθ or 1131, Indict. 9] 4. After some later
fragments (Matth. 1. 12—y. 3, and other matter) on paper, the older
copy begins Matth.v. 29. Κεφ. t., τίτλ., Am., Hus., lect.

No. 30 [xu] 4°, ending John xx. 18, neatly written, but in ill
condition. Ked. ἐ., Carp., Hus. t., τίτλ., Am. Hus., lect., in red,
almost obliterated from damp.

No. 31 [xr] 4° small, in a very elegant and minute hand. Pict.,
κεφ. t., τίτλ. (in gold), κεῴ., Am. (not Hus.), lect. full, and in red.

No. 32 [x or x1] 4° small, elegant, and with much gold ornament.
Carp., κεφ. t., titr., κεφ., Am., Hus., pict., prol., long subscriptions,
syn., men.

No. 36 [xu] 4°. Κεφ. &. in part, τίτλ., Am. (not Lus.), lect., pict.

No. 39 [xu] very small 4°, a poor copy, in several hands. Titi,

κεφ. only.
No. 40 [xir?] 16°, a beautiful little copy. Syn., κεφ. t., lect. in
the faintest red, but no other divisions.

No. 34 [x1 or χη] large 4, This remarkable copy (mentioned
p- 62, note 1, under Scholz’s notation of Wake 2) begins with
the ὑποθέσις to 2 Peter, the second leaf contains Acts xvii. 24—
xviii. 13 misplaced, then follow the 5 later Catholic Epistles with
ὑποθέσεις: then the Apocalypse on the same page as Jude ends,
and the ὑποθέσις to the Romans on the same page as the Apoca-
lypse ends, and then the Pauline Epistles. All the Epistles have
prol., κεφ. ἐν, and the HKuthalian κεῴ., with much lect. primd
manu, and syn. later. Last, but seemingly misplaced by the binder,
follow the Gospels, ending Luke vi. 42. Here are τίτλ. in the
margin by κεῴ., Am. (not Hus.). This copy is Scholz’s Act. 190,
Paul. 244, Apoc. 27, but unnumbered in the Gospels.

Of these manuscripts Thomas Mangey [1684—1755], the editor
of Philo, states on the fly-leaves that he collated Nos. 25, 28, 34
in 1749. Caspar Wetstein collated the Apocalypse in Nos. 12 (to
be described in the next Section) and 34 for his relative’s great
edition; while in the margin of No. 35, a 4° Greek Testament
printed at Geneva (1620), is inserted a most laborious collation
(preceded by a full description) of eight of the Wake manuscripts
with Wetstein’s N. T. of 1711, having this title prefixed to them,
“Hae Variae lectiones ex MSS. notatae sunt manu et opera
Johannis Walkeri, A. 1792: John Walker (most of whose labours
seem never yet to have been used) was doubtless the Vice-Master
of Trinity College, Cambridge, where so many of his critical materials

1 The letter χ is quite illegible, but the Indiction g belongs only to A.D. 831,
1131, 1431, and the style of the manuscript leaves no doubt which to choose.

184 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS

accumulated for the illustrious Bentley are deposited’. Of his eight
codices, we find on investigation that Walker’s Ο 15 Wake 26; Walk-
‘er’s 1 is Wake 20 (collations of these two, sent by Walker to Wet-
stein, comprise Codd. 73, 74, described above); Walker’s B is Wake
21; Walker’s D is Wake 24, both of the Gospels; Walker’s E is
Wake 18, his H is Wake 19, both Evangelistaria; Walker's q is
Wake 12, of which Caspar Wetstein afterwards examined the Apo-
calypse (Cod. 26); Walker’s W is Wake 38 of the Acts and Epis-
tles, or Scholz’s Act. 191, Paul. 245.

To this list we must add the five following copies from the col-
lection of the Abbot M. L. Canonici, purchased at Venice in 1817
for the Bodleian Library, by the late Dr Bandinel.

Canon. Gk. 33 [xv] fol., chart., St Matthew, with the Latin chap-
ters only, once belonged to Anthony Dizomaeus.

Ibid. 34 [dated 1515, 1516: see p. 37, note 3] 4°, chart., written
by Michael Damascenus the Cretan for John Francis Picus of Miran-
dola, contains the whole N. T., the Apocalypse alone being yet col-
lated (k*"): mut. Apoe. ii. 11—23, It has Oecumeniuy’ and Eutha-
lius’ prol.

Ibid. 36 [x1] 4°, Gospels: olim Georg. Phlebaris: pict., xed. t.,
syn., MeN.

Ibid. 112 [xu] 4°, Gospels well written: Carp., pict., κεφ. t.,
lect., syn.

Ibid. 122 Cod. Tllyricus [dated 1429] 4°, Gospels in Tlyrian with
a Greek version later, written in Moldavia by Gabriel, a monk.
Prol., pict., κεφ. t., 8yn., men.

The five following also are in the Bodleian and uncollated:

Baroce. 59. 1 [xv] 4°, chart., has six leaves [x1] containing Luke
xxii. 38—xxiv. 53, and κεφ. t. of John.

Cromwell 15 [x1] 4°, Gospels well written: this and the next
copy were brought from Παντοκράτωρ on Athos, 1727. Carp., Hus. t.,
prol., κεφ. t., τίτλ., κεφ., mut. at end.

Cromwell 16 [x1] 4°, Gospels (followed by the Proper Lessons for
the Holy Week), pict., κεφ. t., Hus. t., Am., Hus., syn.

Miscell. 17, Auct. D. Infr. 2. 21 [x1] 4°, Gospels, prol., κεφ. t.,
ELus., syn., im text said to resemble Cod. 71, was presented by
S. Smallbrooke in 1800.

;
! This humble friend is said to have rejoiced at the prospect of living in the
pages of Pope’s Dunciad, in company with the great Master of Trinity :
“Before them march’d that awful Aristarch ;
Plough’d was his front with many a deep remark:
His hat, which never veiled to human pride,
Walker with reverence took, and laid aside.”—Dunciad, Iv. 203.
And again: ‘‘ ‘Walker! our hat’—nor more he deign’d to say,
But stern as Ajax’ spectre strode away.”—thid. 273.

OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 185

Miscell. 141, Rawl. Auct. G. 3 [x1] 4°, Gospels and other matter;
κεφ. ft.

The Rev. H. O. Coxe, now Bodley’s Librarian, though quite
unable to purchase any of the literary treasures he was commissioned
to inspect in 1857", has added considerably to our knowledge of
manuscripts in the East: those of the Gospels in Greek are the fifty-
one following:

(a2) In the Library of the Patriarch of Alexandria at Cairo;
Shelf 1, No. 2 [xr] 4°; No. 15 [x1] 4°, mut.; No. 16 [x1] 4°, syn.,
beautifully written; No. 17 [x1] 4°; Shelf 5, No. 68 [x] 4°: and at
the Cairo μετοικία of St Catherine’s on Sinai, No. 7, the Gospels and
Psaltery [xv1] fol., chart.

(8) At the great Greek Monastery of the Holy Sepulchre at
Jerusalem, besides Scholz’s Cod. 450 (No. 6) and Cod. 456 (No. 43)
are No. 2 [x] 4°, beautifully written; No. 5[x] 4°; No. 14 [xi] large
4°, with Scholia; No. 17 [x1] 4°, with a few Scholia; No. 31 [x1] 4°,
very beautiful; No. 32 [x1] 4°; No. 33 [xi] 4°; No. 40 [xm] 4°, a
fine copy of the Gospels, Acts, and all the Hpistles; No. 41 [x1] 4°,
a beautiful copy; No. 44 [χιν] fol.; No. 45 [x11] 4°, the Gospels and
all the Epistles, but only λέξεις τῶν πράξεων. No. 46 [xi] small 4°:
and at the College of the Holy Cross there, No. 3 [x1] 4°, syn., κεφ.

(y) At St Saba (see p. 177, note 2) No. 27 [x11] fol.; Nos. 52,
53 [x1] 4°, two copies of the Gospels and all the Epistles, No. 52
having syn. ; No. 54 contains the same [x11] 4°; No. 56 [x] 4° small,
Gospels only; as have also Nos. 57—60 [x or x1]; No. 61, five
copies of the Gospels [x1] 4°; No. 62, five other copies [xm] 4°. In
a kind of lumber-room called the Tower Library, in wretched keep-
ing, are No. 45 [x1] 4°; No. 46 [χη] 4°; No. 47 [x1] small 4°, all of
the Gospels.

(5) Three copies (Nos. 2, 6,21) at the convent of St John at
Patmos* seem to be Scholz’s Codd. 467—9 (see p. 177, note 3), and
must not be reckoned again: there are besides No. 59 [x] 4°; No. 77
[x1] 4°.

1 Those who venerate the Greek Church for what she has been, or look
forward to her future with hope, may well take comfort from the spirit in which
Mr Coxe’s fair offers of purchase were invariably met. Of the rulers of the
Convent of the Holy Sepulchre he writes (Report to Her Majesty’s Government,
p- 10), ‘They would not entertain the idea fora moment. They had now, they
said, become aware of the value of what they possessed, although they admitted
that a few years since it was far otherwise, and that a collector would have found
little difficulty in obtaining anything he wished for barely more than the asking.”

2 Mr Coxe found the Librarian of the Bodleian peculiarly unpopular at St
John’s Convent, Patmos; from whose Library E. D. Clarke [1769—1822] had
obtained the early dated copy of Plato’s Dialogues (now Clarke 39) described
above p. 36 and note 3. ‘‘The authorities were well acquainted with, and all
deplored the loss they had sustained in their Plato, and knew perfectly well where
it is now deposited. No money would tempt them to part with their Job.”
[vi. or vul.| (Report to Her Majesty's Government, p. 27.)

180 ON THE CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS

(ce) At Larnaka in Cyprus the Bishop of Citium has one copy
[x11] 4°, syn.

(¢) In the Island of Milo, in private hands, one copy neatly
written A.p. 1305 by a Cyprian. To all this valuable information
Mr Coxe adds, that Le Barbier, an eminent French archaeologist,
has lately been making a tour of the Monastic libraries at Athos,
with the view of publishing a full account of the manuscript trea-
sures still remaining there.

Dr 8S. T. Bloomfield has lately published (1860), as a Supplement
to the ninth edition of his Greek Testament, “ Critical Annotations
on the Sacred Text,” as an opus supremum et ultimum, the last effort
of a prolonged, arduous, and honourable literary career. It professes
to be grounded on the examination of no less than 70 Manuscripts,
23 at Lambeth, the rest in the British Museum; but in the absence
of all formal description of his documents, or definite explanation,
we may infer that they were not so much collated throughout, as
consulted on the very numerous passages discussed in his work.
We have already acknowledged his labours with regard to manuscripts
included in the preceding catalogue: but his list embraces also the
following codices (making in all 30 of the Gospels), which he has
been the first to render available.

Brit. Mus. Addit. 7141 [xm] 4°, bought 1825, and once Claudius
James Rich’s. Carp., Hus. t., κεφ. t., Am., Hus., lect. in red. No
τίτλ., κεφ.

B. M. 11836, this and the next two are from Bishop Butler’s
collection: [x1], small 4°, contains Evan. Act. Cath. Paul. Psalms,
ἄς. Mut. Mark i. 1—28; Acts i. 1—23; vii. 8—39; Ps. i. 1—3.
Pict., Eus. t., (i.e. a blank space is left for them), τίτλ., Am. (not
ELus.), no prol., κεφ. in Epistles.

B. M. 11838 [dated 1326, Ind. 9] fol., from Sinai, most beauti-
fully written by Constantine, ἃ monk. Syn., κεφ. t., pict., lect., all in
a later hand, τίτλοι.

B. M. 11839 [xv] 4°, chart., ill-written, with later marginal notes,
and no chapter-divisions. Lect.; Matth. iv. 13—xi. 27; Mark i.
1—vi. 1, are later.

B. M. 14774 [xu] syn., is Cod, 202 of Griesbach, from St Mark’s,
at Florence.

B. M. 15581 [xu] κεφ. 4, once Melch, Thevenot’s. See above,
Cod. 272.

B. M. 16183 [x1] 4°, in a minute hand, bought of Capt. Mac-
donald in 1846.

B. M. 16184 [xrv] 4°, the whole New Testament.

B. M. 16943 [x1], in a very small hand, Hus. ¢., pict., from the
collection made by the Hon. F. North for the University of Corfu.

B. M. 17469 [xrv] small fol., syn., with an hiatus about 1 Tim.
iii. 16. This copy is j** in the Apocalypse.

B. M. 17741 [x1] 4°, pict., begins Matth, xii. 21, ends John xvii.
13: purchased in 1849,

OF THE GOSPELS IN GREEK. 187

B. M. 17982 [x11] 4°, ending John xix. 38 (eight leaves being
lost), and believed to contain important readings.

B. M. 18211 [x11] 4°.

B. M. 19387 [x1], written by one Leo, begins Matth. vi. 12,
and was purchased in 1853 from the well-known M. Simonides.

B. M. 19389 [xm] 12°, St John’s Gospel only.

Another copy, B. M. 17470 [dated 1034], purchased of H. Rodd
in 1848, does not appear to have been collated by Dr Bloomfield.

Harl. 5538, described in the Harleian Catalogue as an Evange-
listarium, and numbered by Scholz Evst. 149, I find to be a copy of
the Gospels [x1v| 12°, lect., with no κεφ., Am., Eus.

There is also a fine fragment of the Gospels [xiv], at Sion
College, London.

After deducting 32 duplicates, &., we have enumerated 601
cursive copies of the Gospels.

Manuscripts of the Acts and Catholic Epistles.

Si, = Hvanb).

2. (Paul. 2) Cod. Basil. B. rx. 38? [χιὶ 1] 8°, with Theophylact’s
Commentary, once belonged to the Preaching Friars, then to Amer-
bach, a printer of Basle. It was the copy on which Erasmus grounded
the text of his first edition (1516), and he calls it “exemplar miré
castigatum.” It is Mill’s B. 2. (Battier, Wetstein).

3, (© Evan. 3).

4, (Paul. 4) Basil. B. 20 [xv] 8°, Mill’s B. 3, elegantly written,
the Pauline Epistles preceding the Catholic (see p. 61). Erasmus
made some use of it for revising his text (Battier, Wetstein).

5. (= Evan. 5). 6. (= Evan. 6).

7. (Paul. 9) Paris Reg. 102 [x] 8°, prol., seems to be Stephens’ ι΄,
although ε΄ 15 cited in error Luke v. 19; John ii. 17: it nearly re-
sembles Cod. 5 and the Latin version.

8. (Paul. 10) Stephens’ ια΄, now missing, cited about 400 times
by that editor, in 276 of which it supports the Latin versions (Mill,
N.T. Proleg. ὃ 1171). Stephens cites ια΄ (apparently in error) four
times in the Gospels, once in the Apocalypse. (Matth. x. 8; 10; xii.
32; John 11. 17; Apoc. xiii. 4).

9. (Paul. 11) Cod. Vatabli, now in the University Library at
Cambridge, 2068 or Kk. 6.4 [xi]. Bp. Marsh has fully proved that
this copy, which once belonged to Stephens’ friend Vatablus, Professor
of Hebrew at Paris, is his vy’: this copy also is twice quoted by him
in the Gospels (Matth. xxvii. 64; John ii. 17), through mere over-
sight.

10. (Paul. 12, Apoc. 2) Reg. 237, Stephens’ ιε΄ [x] 4°, neatly
written, with pro/., scholia and other matter. Lelong identified this,
and about five other of Stephens’ manuscripts: its value in the Apo-
calypse is considerable (Wetstein, Scholz).

11. (Paul. 140) Reg. 103 [x] 8°, with scholia, mut. Act. ii. 20—31.

188 ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

12. (Paul. 16, Apoc. 4) Reg. 219 [xr] 4°, neat, with Arethas’
Commentary on the Apocalypse, and Oecumenius’ on the other
books. Like Evan. 16. 19. 317, it once belonged to the Medici: in
1518 it was given by the Greek Janus Lascar “ Petro Masieli” of
Constance, and was used by Donatus of Verona for an edition of
Oecumenius (Wetstein, Scholz). :

*13. (=Evan. 33). 14. (=Evan. 35).

15. Coislin. 25 [x1] 4°, described by Montfaucon (as were also
Codd. 16—18), compared with Pamphilus’ revision (see p. 47), prol.,
and a Commentary digested by Andreas, a priest (Wetstein).

16. (Paul. 19) Coislin. 26 [x1] fol., with a Commentary much
like Oecumenius’, and a catena of various Fathers: also a life of 8.
Longinus on two leaves [1x]. It once belonged to the monastery of
S. Athanasius on Athos, βίβλιον τῆς τετάρτης θέσεως (Wetstein).

17. (Paul. 21, Apoc. 19) Coisl. 205 [written by Antony, a monk,
1079. Indict. 2] fol., prol., syn., mut. 1 Cor. xvi. 17—2 Cor. 1, 7;
Hebr. xiii. 15—25; with Apoe. i. 1—ii. 5 in a recent hand (Wetstein).

18. (Paul. 22, Apoc. 18) Coislin. 202, 2 [foll. 1—26 x1 on vellum,
the rest x11 on cotton paper], with scholia to the Acts and Catholic
Epistles, Andreas’ Commentary to the Apocalypse, prol. to St Paul’s
Epistles (Wetstein).

19. (=Evan. 38).

20. (Paul. 25) Brit. Mus. King’s Library, I. B. I, once West-
minster 935 [x1v] chart., prol., mut., and in bad condition (Wetstein).

21. (Paul. 26) Cambridge University Libr. Dd. x1. 90 [xi] 12°,
once Jo. Luke’s: mut. Act. i—xi; xiv. 23—xv. 10; Rom. xv.
14—16; 24—26; xvi. 4—20; 1 Cor. i. 15—iii. 12; 2 Tim. i. 1—i.
4; Tit. 1. 9—ii. 15; ending Philem. 2. Pro/. to Pauline Epistles
only.

22. (Paul. 75 is in the same hand) Brit. Mus. Addit. 5115, once
Askew’s [xu] 4°, κεφ. ¢., prol., ending with xed. to the Romans: mut.
Act. 1. 1—11: lect. is later (Act. i—xx. collated by Paulus for Gries-
bach, Bloomfield): Scholz’s date [1x] is an error.

23. (Paul. 28, Apoc. 6) Bodleian. Baroce. 3 [x1] small 4°, a beau-
tiful little book, written at Ephesus, beginning Act. xi. 13, ending
Apoc. xx. 1: mut. 1 Pet. iii. 7—23: the opening chapters are supplied
in a late hand. With the Euthalian pro/. and scholia on the Epistles,
and a full and unique Commentary on the Apocalypse, edited by
J. A. Cramer, 1840 (Mill, Caspar Wetstein, Griesbach).

*24. (Paul. 29) Christ’s Coll. Cambridge F. 1. 13 [xm] 4°, med.
Act. i. 1—11; xviii. 20—xx. 14; James v. 14—1 Pet. i. 4, and some
leaves of this fine copy are torn or decayed: there are also many
changes by a later hand (Mill’s Cant. 2, Scrivener’s 1): unpublished
collations were made by Bentley (Trin. Coll, Camb. B. xvu. 10, 11),
and Jo. Wigley for Jackson (Jesus Coll. Camb. O. Θ. 1).

25. (Paul. 31, Apoe. 7) Harleian 5537, or Covell. 2 [dated Pente-
cost, 1087, Indict. 10] 4°, an important copy, from the neighbourhood
of the Algean, with the στίχοι numbered, and a lexicon: mut.

OF THE ACTS AND CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 189

1 John v. 14—2 John 6 (Mill, Griesbach, Bloomfield, Scrivener in
A poe.). '

20. (Paul. 32) Harl. 5557, Covell. 3 [χπτ] 4°, mut. Act. 1. 1—11;
1 Cor. xi. 7—xv. 56: syn., lect., prol., στίχοι. This copy and the
next bear Covell’s emblem ‘“ Zwceo,” and the date Constantinople,
1675, but he got Cod. 27 from Adrianople. (Mill, Paulus in Act. i—
iii. Bloomfield).

27. (Paul. 33) Harl. 5620 [xv] 4°, chart., or Covell. 4, is of some
weight: there are no chapter-divisions p. m.; the writing is small,
and abbreviated (Mill, Griesbach, Bloomfield).

*28. (Paul. 34, Apoe. 8) Harl. 5778, is Covell’s 5’ or Sinai manu-
script, [x1] 4°, in wretched condition, and often illegible. Mut. Act. i.
1—20; Apoe. vi. 14—viii. 1; xxii. 19—21, perhaps elsewhere (Mill,
Bloomfield for Act. Paul., Scrivener for Apoc.).

29. (Paul. 35) Genevensis 20 [xr or xu] 12°, brought from
Greece, beautifully but carelessly written, without subscriptions; in
text much like Cod. 27 (readings sent to Mill, Scholz).

30. (Paul. 36, Apoc. 9) Bodleian Misc. 74 [x1] 4°, brought
from the East by Dr Robert Huntington, beginning Act. xv. 19,
κεφ., prol. 3 John, Jude, the Apocalypse and St Paul’s Epistles,
which stand last, are in a somewhat earlier hand than the rest (Mill).

*31. (= Evan. 69).
32. (= Evan. 51) mut. 2 Pet. π|. 2—18.

33. (Paul. 39). Lincoln Coll. Oxford 82 [xt or x11] 4°, presented
in 1483 by Robert Flemmynge, Dean of Lincoln, a beautiful and
interesting codex, with pict., prol., lect., syn., men., and the num-
bers of the στίχοι noted in the subscriptions. Mut. 2 Pet. i. 1—15;
Rom. i. 1—20 (Walton’s Polyglott, Mill, Dobbin Cod. Montfort., who
regards it as the manuscript from which this portion of the latter
was mainly copied). The Epistle of Jude stands between James and
1 Peter (see p. 103).

*34. (=Evan. 61). 35. (= Evan. 57).

36. New College, Oxford 58 [x11] 4°, with a Catena of Fathers,
enumerated by Mill (N. T. Prol. ὃ 1390), and edited by Cramer,
Oxon. 1838: with a valuable text, prol., and τίτλοι κεφαλαίων (Wal-
ton’s Polyglott, Mull).

37. (Paul. 43) New Coll. Oxford 59 [xim] 4°, erroneously de-
scribed by Walton, and after him by Wetstein, as part of Evan. 58, a
much later manuscript. It is a beautiful copy, prol., with marginal
glosses (Walton’s Polyglott, Mill, Dobbin).

*38. (Paul. 44) Lugduno-Batay. 77, Mill’s Petav. 1 [xm] 4°, once
Petavius’, a Councillor of Paris, given by Queen Christina to Is.
Vossius (Mill, Wetstein, Dermout 1825).

39. (Paul. 45, Apoc. 11) Petavii 2, age and present locality not

1 Covell once marked this codex 5, but afterwards gave it the name of the
Sinai MS., reserving 5 for Harl. 5777 or Evan. 446.

190 ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

stated. Mut. Act. 1. 1—xviii. 22; James i, 1—v. 17; 3 John 9—
Jude 25; 1 Cor. iii. 16—x. 13 (Extracts in Mill; J. Gachon). Ξ

40. (Paul. 46, Apoc. 12) Alexandrino-Vat. 179, Petavii 3 [x1]
4°, with a mixed text and the end of Titus (from iii. 3), Philenion and
the Apocalypse in a later hand. This copy, given by Christina to
Alexander VIII. (1689—91), is of considerable importance, and as
containing all Euthalius’ labours on the Acts and the Epistles (see
p- 53), was largely used by Laur. Zacagni for his edition of his Pro-
logues, &c. (Extracts in Mill, Zacagni, Birch; Griesbach adds, “ Gag-
naeus eundem sub Dionysiani nomine laudasse creditur.”)

41, (=Evan. 175).

*42, (Paul. 48, Apoc. 13. Evst.—Lect. 56). Gymnasium at
Frankfort on the Oder, once Seidel’s [x1] 4°, carelessly written, with
some rare readings: prol., mut. Act. il, 3—34 (xxvii. 19—34 is ina
later hand); 2 Pet. i. 1, 2; 1 John v. 11—21; Apoc. xviii. 3—13
(N. Westermann, H. Middeldorp). One leaf of a Lectionary is
added, containing Matth. xvii. 16—23; 1 Cor. ix. 2—12. This
copy often agrees closely with the Complutensian text and Laud. 31
(Evan. 51) jointly.

48. (=Evan. 76).

44, (Like Evan. 82, Paul. 51, Apoc. 5) certain manuscripts cited
by Laurentius Valla.

45. (Paul. 52, Apoc. 16) Uffenbach 1 or 2 [xv] 4°, chart., in two
hands, is stated by Tischendorf to be now at Hamburg: with its
companion Cod. M of St Paul’s Epistles, it was lent to Wetstein in
1717 and to Bengel, by Z. C. Uffenbach. It once belonged to Jo.
Ciampini at Rome, is carelessly written, but from a good text;
“plura genuina omittens, quam aliena admiscens:” Bengel.

46. (Paul. 55) Monacensis 375 [x1] fol., is Bengel’s Augustan. 6,
with Oecumenius’ Commentary and some rare readings (Bengel,
Matthaei, Scholz).

47. (= Evan. 90). 48, (= Evan. 105). 49. (=Evan. 92).

50. (Paul. 8) Stephens’ ζ΄ is unknown, though it was once in
the Royal Library at Paris; that is if Evan. 8, Reg. 49, is Stephens’
ζ΄ in the Gospels, which may perhaps be doubted. Stephens seldom
cites ζ΄, or (as Mill puts the case) “textus ipsius fere universus ab-
sorptus est in hac Editione” (N.T., Proleg. § 1167)’.

51. (Paul. 133, Apoc. 52) Paris Reg. 56, once Mazarin’s [x1]
4°, prol., mut., Apoc. xxii. 17—21.

52. (Paul. 50) Cod. Rhodiensis, some of whose readings Stunica,
the chief of the Complutensian editors (see Chapter v.), cites in
controversy with Erasmus: it may have been his own property, and

11 find that ζ΄ is cited in Stephens’ margin 84 times in the Gospels, usually in
company with several others, but alone Mark vi. 20; xiv. 15; Luke i. 37. In
the Acts it is cited but once (xvii. 5), in the Catholic Epistles 7, in the Pauline
27 times; never in the Apocalypse. Since Cod, 8 contains only the Gospels,
Cod. 18 or Reg. 47 of the whole N.T. has been suggested. One hour in the
Imperial Library at Paris would suffice to settle the question.

OF THE ACTS AND CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 191

cannot now be identified. Whatever Mill states (on 1 John iii. 16),
it is not now at Alcala.

*53, (Paul. 30) Emman. College, Cambr. 1. 4. 35 [x11] 16°, only 43
inches square, the writing being among the minutest and most elegant
extant. It is Mill’s Cant. 3, Scrivener’s n (a facsimile is given
Plate x1. No. 31 b), and is in bad condition, in parts almost
illegible. It begins 2 Pet. ii. 4, and there is an hiatus from
1 John iii. 20 to the middle of Oecumenius’ Prologue to the Romans:
mut.. also, 1 Cor. xi. 7—xv. ὅθ, and ends Hebr. xi. 27. From
1 Tim. vi. 5 another and far less careful hand begins: but the manu-
script exhibits throughout many abbreviations. Prol., κεφ. t., τίτλοι,
κεφ., and some marginal notes primd manu, Given to the College
“in Testimonium grati animi” by Sam. Wright 1598.

54. (= Evan. 43).

55. Readings of a second copy of Jude contained in Cod. 47.

56. (Paul. 59, Apoc. 23). This number was assigned by Wet-
stein and Griesbach to certain readings of four Medicean manuscripts
(only one in the Acts), which like No. 102 of the Gospels, were
found by Wetstein in the margin of Rapheleng’s Greek Testament
(1591). As Birch considers these identical with Codd. 84, 87—9,
Scholz substitutes (Paul. 227) Cod. Bodleian., Clarke 4 [x11] 4°, prol.,
ked., syn., lect. (extracts &e. by Dean Gaisford).

57. (= Evan. 234).

58. of Wetstein is the same codex as 22; Scholz substitutes
(Paul. 224) Bodl., Clarke 9 [xii] 8°, lect.. mut. Hebr. xii. 7—25
(Gajsfor®).

59. (Paul. 62) Harleian. 5588 [x11] 4°, cotton paper, prol.,
full lect., κεφ. On the first leaf we read “liber hospitalis de Cusa
trevirencis dioc. R™.’ See Cod. Evan. 87 (Griesbach, Bloomfield).

60. (Paul. 63, Apoc. 29) Harl. 5613 [dated May 1407, Indict.
15] 4° chart., mut. Apoc. xxii. 2—18. (Griesbach 55 chapters of
Acts and Epp., Griesbach and Scrivener in Apocalypse).

*61. (Paul. 61) comprises extracts made by Griesbach from the
margin of a copy of Mill’s N. T. in the Bodleian (see Evan. 236),
where certain readings are cited under the notation Hal. These
are now known to be taken from Evan. 440 (p. 176), or Scrivener’s v
of the Gospels, o of the Acts and Epistles.

62. (Paul. 65) Reg. 60, once Colbert’s [x1v] fol., on cotton paper,
with scholia, prol., syn. (Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz).

*63. (Paul. 68). Caesar-Vindobon. Nessel. 313, Lambec. 35
[xiv] 8°, with scholia and prol, (Treschow, Alter, Birch).

*64. (Paul. 69) C. Vind. Nessel. 303, Lambec. 36 [x11] 8°, care-
fully written by one John, prol., syn., brought by Auger Busbecke
from Constantinople, like Cod. 67 and many others of this collection
(Treschow, Alter, Birch).

*65. (=Evan. 218).

*66. (Paul. 67, Apoc. 34) C. Vind. Nessel. 302, Lambec. 34
[x11] 4°, with scholia, syn., and other matter: three several hands

192 ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

have made corrections, which Griesbach regarded as far more valuable
than the text (cited by him 66**). Mut. Apoc. xv. 6—xvii. ὃ;
xviii, 10—xix. 9; xx. 8—xxil. 21. It once belonged to Arsenius
Archbishop of Monembasia (see Evan. 333, Evst. 113), then to Se-
bastian Tengnagel and Jo. Sambue (A. C. Hwiid 1785 for the Acts,
Treschow, Alter, Birch).

*67. (Paul. 70) C. Vind. Nessel. 221, Thane 37 [written by

one Leo at Constantinople, December 1331, Indict. 14] 4°, elegant
but inaccurate, prol., syn. (Treschow, Alter, Birch).

68. (Paul. 73) Upsal., Sparwenfeld 42, is in fact two separate
manuscripts, bound together, both of high value. The first part
[x11] contains the Acts (commencing viii. 19) Rom. 1 Cor. to xv. 38:
the second [x1] begins 1 Cor. xiii. 6, and extends through the Pauline
and Catholic Epistles, which follow them (see p. 61). "There is a Ca-
tena annexed, and the portion in duplicate (1 Cor. xiii. 6—xy. 38) has
contradictory readings (P. Ἐς Aurivill [Orville 1] 1686).

69. (Paul. 74, Apoc. 50) Guelpherbytanus ΧΥῚ. 7 at Wolfen-
biittel, Aug. 7, 4°, chart. also in two hands: the first (Acts and
Epistles) [x11] written by George a monk, the Apocalypse [xiv]. It
exhibits a remarkable text, and has many marginal readings and
prol. (Knittel, Matthaei).

70. (=Evan. 131). 711. (=Evan. 133).

72. (Paul. 79, Αροο. 37) Vatic. 366 [xm] 4°, chart. (This and
all from 70 to 97 were slightly collated by Birch, and all except 81,
93—7 by Scholz also). *%

73. (Paul. 80) Vat. 367 [xr] 4°, an excellent manuscript used by
Caryophilus (see p. 157, Evan. 112).

74. Vat. 760 [x11] 4°, only contains the Acts with a Catena.

75. (=Evan. 141). 76. (=Evan 142). 77. (=Evan. 149).

78. (Paul. 89). Alexandrino-Vat. 29 [xm] 4°, a good copy, but
mut. 2 Cor. xi. 15—xii. 1; Ephes. 1. 9—Hebr. xiii. 25.

79. (Paul. 90) Urbino-Vat. 3 [x1] 8°.

80. (Paul. 91, Apoc. 42) Pio-Vat. 50 [x1] 8°.

81. Barberin. 377 [x1] fol., with a Commentary (Birch), Scholz
could not find this copy, which has remarkable readings: it contains
but one chapter of the Acts and the Catholic Epistles.

82. (= Evan. 180).

83. (Paul. 93) Biblio. Borbon. Reg. at Naples 1 B. 12 [x] 4°
written by Evagrius and compared with “Pamphilus’ copy at Caesarea
(see p. 47 and ‘Cod. 15): the numbers of the στίχοι are sometimes

noted in the margin.

84. (Paul. 94) Laurent. rv. 1, at Florence [x] fol., has Chrysos-
tom’s Commentary on the Acts, that of Nicetas of Heraclea on all
the Epistles.

85. (Paul. 95) Laurent. rv. 5 [x1] fol., on cotton paper, contains
the Acts and Pauline Epistles with Theophy ylact’s Commentary.

OF THE ACTS AND CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 193

86. (Paul. 96, Apoc. 75) Laurent. rv. 20 [χη] 8°, with a Com-
mentary.

87. (Paul. 97) Laurent. 1v. 29 [x] 4°, with scholia, prol., and a
modern interlinear Latin version in the Epistles, for beginners.

88. (Paul. 98) Laurent. rv. 31 [x1] 8°, prol., mué. in fine Titi.

89. (Paul. 99, Apoc. 45) Laurent. rv. 32, 12°, written by John
Tzutzuna, priest and monk, December 1093, Indict. 1, in the reign
of Alexius Comnenus, Nicholas being Patriarch of Constantinople.
Prol., syn., and a treatise of Dorotheus Bishop of Tyre on the 70
disciples and 12 Apostles (found also in Codd. 10, 179).

90. (=Evan. 197). 91. (=Evan, 201). 92. (=Evan. 204).

*93. (=Hvan. 205). *94. (= Evan. 206). *95. (Evan. 209).

*96. (Paul. 109) Venet. 11 [x1] 4°, an important copy, often re-
sembling Cod. 142, from the monastery of St Michael de Troyna in
Sicily. It has both a Latin and Arabic version. Mut. Act. 1.
1—12; xxv. 21—xxvi. 18; Philemon. Codd. 93—96 of the Acts,
106—112 of St Paul, were collated by G. F. Rink, ZLucubratio
Critica in Act. Ap. Epp. Cath. et Paul. Basilae 1830.

97. (Paul. 241) Biblioth. Guelpherbyt. Gud. gr. 104. 2 [x1] 8°;
once belonging to Langer, librarian at Wolfenbiittel, who sent a
collation to Griesbach. J/ué. Act. xvi. 39—xvii. 18, with marginal
scholia from Chrysostom and Oecumenius, prayers and dialogues
subjoined. Deposited by one Theodoret in the Catechumens’ library
of the Laura (monastery) of St Athanasius on Athos.

Codd. 98—107 were accurately collated by Matthaei for his N. T.

*98. (Paul. 113) Codex Mosquensis (Mt. a) [x1], once belonged
to Jeremias the patriarch of the monastery of Stauronicetas on
Athos. Matthaei professes that he chiefly followed this manuscript,
which is divided into three parts: viz. a, church-lessons from the
Acts, so arranged that no verse is lost, with various readings and
scholia in the margin: a, or simply ὦ the text with marginal various
readings and scholia: a, Church-lessons from the Acts and Epistles.

*99. (Paul. 114) Mosq. Synod. 5 (Mt. 9) [dated April 1445]
fol., chart., from the Iberian monastery on Athos, carelessly written
by Theognostus, Metropolitan of Perga and Attalia: prol., syn.,
and some Patristic writings.

*100. (Paul. 115) Synod. 334 (Mt. 4) [x1] 4°, with a Catena
and scholia.

*101. (Paul. 116) Synod. 333 (Mt. f) [xm] 4°, on cotton paper,
carefully written, with scholia to the Acts and prod.

*102. (Paul. 117) Synod. 98 (Mt. g) [1x?] fol., from the monas-
tery of St Dionysius on Athos, containing the Epistles with a
Catena, without the Acts, is highly valued by Matthaei, but does
not seem to be an uncial copy. dwt. Rom. x. 18—1 Cor. vi. 13;
viii. 7—12.

*103. (Paul. 118) Synod. 193 (Mt. h) [x11] fol., from the Iberian
monastery on Athos, is a volume of scholia, with the entire text in

194 ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

its margin for Act. i. 1—ix. 12; elsewhere only in fragments after
the usual manner of scholia.

*104. (= Evan. 241). *105. (=Evan. 242).

*106. (Paul. 122) Synod. 328 (Mt. m) [x1] 4°, carefully written,
from the Batopedion(!) monastery on Athos, has prol., syn., and the
Psalms annexed.

*107. (Evst. 57) Cod. Dresdensis 252 (Mt. 19) [xv] 8°, chart., a
Euchology, carelessly written by several scribes. It came from Italy,
and, like Apoc. 32, once belonged to Loescher, then to the Count de
Bruhl. ;

108. (= Evan. 226). 109. (=Evan. 228).

Codd. 110—192 were first added to the list by Scholz, who states
that he collated entire 115, 133, 160; in the greater part 120—3,
126, 127, 131, 137, 161—3, 174; the rest slightly or not at all.

110, (=Evan. 441) should be erased from the Catalogue.

*111. (© Εν. 440). This is Scrivener’s o Act. and Paul.

112. Cantabrig. 2068 erase: it is the same as Cod. 9.

*113. (=Evan. 18). Codd. 113, 114, 117, being 132, 134, 137,
of St Paul, and 51 Apoe. respectively, together with Act. 127 and
Paul. 139, 140, 153 have been collated by J. G. Reiche.

114. (Paul. 134) Reg. 57 [xi] 4°, a valuable copy, with prol.,
syn., some portions of the Septuagint version, and prayers for the
Greek service.

*115, (Paul. 135) Reg. 58, once Colbert’s, as were 118, 121, 122,
124, 128, 129 [x11] 4°, begins Act. xiv. 27 ends with 2 Tim. ; there
are no liturgical notes.

116. (Paul. 136, Apoc. 53) Reg. 59, once Teller’s [xvi] 4°,
chart., prol. and scholia to the Catholic Epistles.

*117. (= Evan. 263) of some value.

118. (Paul. 138, Apoe. 55) Reg. 101 [x11] fol., on cotton paper,
with prol., scholia, and other matter. fut. Act. xix. 18—xxii. 17.

119. (Paul. 139, Apoc. 56) Reg. 102 A. [x, but Apoc. x1] fol.,
prol., syn. mut. 2 Cor, i. 8—ii. 4, The Catholic Epistles follow the
Pauline, as would seem to be the case in Cod. 120.

120. (Paul. 141) Reg. 103 A. [x1] fol., prol., much mutilated,
beginning Act. xxi. 20 (although v. 38—vi. 7; vil. 6—16; 32—x.
25 are supplied [xin] on cotton paper), mut. Act. xxviii. 23—Rom. ii.
26; Phil. 1, 5—1 Thess. iv. 1; v. 26—2 Thess. i. 11; 1 John ii, 11
—iii. 3; 24—v. 14; 2 John; ending 3 John 11.

121. (Paul. 142) Reg. 104 [xm] fol., on cotton paper, was
August. de Thou’s before Colbert’s: Ject., syn.

122. (Paul. 143) Reg. 105 [x1] 4°, correctly written, but a mere
collection of disarranged fragments, containing Act. xiii. 48—xy, 22;
29—xvi. 36; xvii. 4—xviii. 26; xx. 16—xxviii. 17; 1 Pet. ii. 20—
iii. 2; 17—1 John iii. 5; 21—v. 9; 2 John 8—3 John 10; Jude 7
—Rom. iv. 16; 24—vii. 9; 18—1 Cor. i, 28; ii. 13—viii. 1; ix. 6
—xiv. 2; 10—Gal. i. 10; ii. 4—Eph. i. 18; 1 Tim. i, 14—v. 5.

OF THE ACTS AND CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 195

123. (Paul. 144) Reg. 106 A. [x1v] 8°, on cotton paper, with
prol., scholia and Church- ‘hymns: mut. 1 Pet. i. 9—ii. 7.

124, (Paul. 149, Apoc. 57) Reg. 124 [xvi] 16°, beautifully writ-
ten by Angelus Vergecius (p. 38, note 2).

125. (Paul. 150) Reg. 125 [xiv] 12°, from Constantinople.

126. (Paul. 153) Reg. 216, from the Medici collection [x] fol.,
probably written at Constantinople, with pro/., and a Catena from
Chrysostom, Ammonius, Origen, &c., sometimes in uncial letters,
occasionally, especially in Hebr., as late as [xvz].

*127. (Paul. 154) Reg. 217 [x1] fol., one of the important manu-
scripts collated by Reiche. It has a Catena in the Acts, scholia in
the Catholic, Theodoret’s Commentary on the Pauline Epistles.

128, (Paul. 155) Reg. 218 [x1] fol., with a Catena.

129, (Paul. 156) Reg. 220 [xt] fol., a Commentary, the text
being sometimes suppressed.

130. Reg. 221 [x11] fol., from the East, with a Catena: mut.
Act. xx. 38—xxii. 3; 2 Pet. 1. 14—iii. 18; 1 John iv. 11—Jude 8.

131. (Paul. 158) Reg. 223, once Boistaller’s, contains the
Pauline Epistles with prol. and a Catena, written a.p. 1045 by

Theopemptus, reader and eae followed by the Acts and
Cath. Ep. [x11] fol.

132. (= Evan. 330).

*133. (Paul. 166) Taurinens. 285. τ, 40, at Turin [xm] chart.,
pict., prol.

134. (Paul. 167) Taurin. 315 (now 19) um. 17 [x1] prol., mut.
Act. i. ii.

135. (= Evan. 339).

136. (Paul. 169) Taurin. 328 (now 1) 1. 31 [xi], mut. in Hebr.

137. (Paul. 176) Ambros. 97, at Milan [x1] 4°, lect., prol., bought
at Corfu: so like Cod. D and the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac
in the Acts, as to assist us when D is mutilated; especially in addi-
tions. Zischend.

138. (Paul. 173) Ambros. 102 [xiv] 4°, chart., once J. V. Pe-
nelli’s; it contains the Epistles only.

139. (Paul. 174) Ambros. 104 [written March 20, 1434, Indict.
12, ‘by one Athanasius] fol., chart., bought at Padua, 1603.

140. (Paul. 215, Apoc. 74) Venet. 546 [partly x1 on vellum,
partly xu chart.| 4°. The Hpistles have a Catena, the Apocalypse a
Commentary.

141. (= Evan. 189).

142. (Paul. 178) Mutinensis 243, at Modena [xm] 12°; valuable,
but with many errors; but see Cod. 96.

143. Laurent. vi. 5, contains the Catholic Epistles and other
matter. Scholz erroneously states that this copy = Evan. 362.

144. (= Evan. 363). 145. (= Evan, 365).

146. (=Evan, 367).

15—2

190 ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

147. (Paul. 183, Apoc. 76) Laurent. rv. 30, at Florence [x11] 8°,
prol.

148. (Paul. 184) Laurent. 2574 [written 984, Indict. 12, by
Theophylact, priest and doctor of law] fol., prol., once belonged to
the Benedictine Library of St Mary.

149. Laurent. 176 [xr] 8°, contains the Catholic Epistles, with
a Latin version.

150. (= Evan. 368). ; 161. (=Evan. 386).
152. (= Evan. 442), erase. 153. (= Evan. 444).

154. (Paul. 187) Vatican. 1270 [xv] 4°, contains the Acts,
Catholic Epistles, Rom., 1 Cor., with a Commentary.

155. (Paul. 188) Vat. 1430 [x11] fol., with a Commentary in
another hand. It does not contain the Acts, but all the Epistles.

156. (Paul. 190) Vat. 1650 [dated Jan. 1073] fol., written for
Nicholas Archbishop of Calabria by the cleric Theodore. The Pau-
line Epistles have a Commentary: it begins Act. vy. 4.

157. (Paul. 191) Vat. 1714 [xm] 4°, is a heap of disarranged
fragments, containing Act. xviii, 14—xix. 9; xxiv. 11—xxvi. 23;
James iii. 1—v. 20; 3 John with κεφ. and ὑπόθεσις to Jude; Rom.
vi. 22—viii. 32; xi. 31—xv. 23; 1 Cor. 1. 1—iii. 12.

158. (Paul. 192) Vat. 1761 [x1] 4°, prot. From this copy Mai
supplied the lacunae of Cod. B in the Pauline Epistles (see Ρ. 91,
note).

159. Vat. 1968, Basil. 7 [x1] 8°, contains the Acts, James and
1 Peter, with scholia, whose authors’ names are given: mut. Act. i, 1
—yv. 29; vi. 14—vii. 11.

*160. (Paul. 193, Apoc. 24) Vat. 2062, Basil. 101 [x1] 4°, with
scholia accompanied by the authors’ names: it begins Act. xxvii. 19,
ends Hebr. ii. 1.

161. (Paul. 198, Apoe. 69) Vat. Ottob. 258 [xi] 4°, chart.,
with a Latin version: it begins Act. ii. 27, and the last chapters of
the Apocalypse are lost. The latter part was written later [xtv].

162. (Paul. 200) Vat. Ottob. 298 [xv] small 4° or 8°, with the
Latin Vulgate version (with which Scholz states that the Greek has
been in many places made to harmonise), contains many transposi-
tions of words, and unusual readings introduced by a later hand’.

1 Cod. 162 has attracted much attention from the circumstance that it is the
only unsuspected witness among the Greek manuscripts for the celebrated text
1 John v. 7, whose authenticity will be discussed in Chap, 1x. A facsimile of the
passage in question was traced in 1829 by Cardinal Wiseman for Bishop Burgess,
and published by Horne in several editions of his Introduction, as also by Tregelles
(Horne, Iv. p. 217). If the facsimile is at all faithful, this is as rudely and indis-
tinctly written as any manuscript in existence; but the illegible scrawl between
the Latin column in the post of honour on the left, and the Greek column on the
right, has recently been ascertained by Mr B. H. Alford (who examined the codex
at Tregelles’ request) to be merely a consequence of the accidental shifting of
the tracing paper, too servilely copied by the engraver.

OF THE ACTS AND CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 194

163. (Paul. 201) Vat. Ottob. 325 [x1v] 8°, chart., mut. Act. iv.
19—yv. 1.

164, (= Evan. 390).

165. Vat. Ottob. 417 [xrv] 8°, chart., contains the Catholic
Kpistles, works of St Ephraem and others.

166. (Paul. 204, Apoc. 22) Vallicellian. B. 86 [x11] 12°, written
by George, son of Elias, and Joachim a monk.

167. (= Evan. 393).

168. (Paul. 205) Vallicell. F. 13 [xrv] 4°, chart.

169. (Paul. 206) Ghigian. R. v. 29, at Rome [dated June 12,
1394'] fol., written by Joasaph at Constantinople in the monastery
τῶν ὁδηγῶν. See Evangelistarium δῦ.

1τ0. (= Evan. 994).

171, 172 (Paul. 209, 210) are both Collegii Romani [xvi] fol.,
chart.

173. (Paul. 211) Bibl. Borbon. Reg. Naples, with no press
mark [x1] 4°, prol., syn., indices of στίχοι and μαρτυρίαι (see p. 54)
from Scripture and profane writers. This codex has 1 John v. 7 in
the margin, by a recent hand.

174. (Paul. 212) Neapol. 1 C. 26 [xv] 8°, chart.

175. (Paul. 216) Messanensis IT [xu] 4°, at St Basil’s monastery.

176. (=Evan. 421). Slit jAqyuivan.eL 22).

178. (Paul. 242, Apoc. 87) Meermann. 118 [xr or x11] 8°,
bought at his sale in 1824 by Sir T. Phillipps, Bart. of Middle Hill,
Worcestershire. The Pauline Epistles are written smaller than the
rest, but in the same clear hand. Lect., κεφ. t., prol., κεφ. (but not in
the Apocalypse), flourished rubric capitals. Scrivener fully collated
Apoc. (whose text is valuable), the rest slightly. It is sadly muti-
lated; it begins Act. iv. 24; mut. Act. v. 2—16; vi. 2—vil. 2;
16—viii. 10; 38—ix. 13; 26—39; x. 9—22; 43—xili. 1; xxiii.
32—xxiv. 24; xxviii. 23—James i. 5; iii. 6—iv. 16; 2 Pet. 11. 10---
1 John i. 1; iii. 13—iv. 2; Jude 16—25; Rom. xiv. (xvi. 25 there
placed)—xv. 14; 1 Cor. iii, 15—xv. 23; 2 Cor. x. 14—xi. 19; xiii.
5—13; Eph. i. l—ii. 14; v. 29—vi. 24; Col. 1. 24—26; ii. 4—7;
2 Thess. i. 1—iii. 5; Hebr. ix. 3—x. 29; Apoc. xiv. 4—14: ending
xxi. 12. The ὑποθέσεις and tables of xed. before each Kpistle have
suffered in like manner.

179. (Paul. 128, Apoc. 82) Monacens. 211, once the Bohemian
Zomozerab’s [x1] 4°, lect., prol., ὑπογραφαί, Dorotheus’ treatise (see
Cod. 89), fragments of Hus. t., and (in a later hand) marginal scholia
to St Paul. The text is very near that commonly received.

*180 (=Evan. 431), important. 181. (= Evan. 400).

182. (Paul. 243) Bibl. of St John’s monastery at Patmos [xu]
8°, also another [xi] 8”.

1 Scholz says 1344, and Tischendorf corrects few of his gross errors in these
Catalogues: but A.M. 6902, which he cites from the manuscript, is A.D. 1394.

198 ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

183. (Paul. 231) Bibl. of the great Greek monastery at Jeru-
ai τ 8 [xtv] 8°. This must be Coxe’s No. 7 [x] 4°, beginning Act.

184. (Paul. 232, Apoc. 85) Jerusalem 9 [xt] 4°, with a Com-
mentary. ‘This is evidently Coxe’s No. 15, though he dates it at the
end of [x].

185. (Paul. 233) St Saba, Greek monastery, 1 [xt] 12°.

186. (=Evan 457). 187. (= Evan. 462).

188. (Paul. 236) St Saba 15 [xm] 4°. 189. (= Evan. 466).

190. (Paul. 244, Apoc. 27) Christ Church, Oxford, Wake 34 [x1]
4°, is described above, p. 183.

191. (Paul. 245) Christ Church, Wake 38 [x1] 4°, in small and
neat characters, from St Saba (brought to England with the other
Wake manuscripts in 1731), contains a Catena, and at the end the
date 1312 (ἐτελείωθη τὸ παρὸν ἐν ἔτει swxX) in a later hand. ὅψη.
prol., full lect., mut. Act. i. 1—11. (Walker: see above, p. 184).

192. (Paul. 246) Christ.Church, Wake 37 [x1] 4°, mut. Act. xii.
4—-xxiii, 32. The last leaf is a palimpsest, and some later leaves are
in paper. To this list must be added the following:

*Jo" (or p*"). B. M. Addit. 20003. Thus Tischendorf indicates
the most important cursive copy of the Acts (discovered by him in
Egypt in 1853), which he sold to the Trustees of the British Museum
1854. It is dated April 20, 1044, Indict. 12, and was written by
one John a monk, in small 4°, with no xed. (though the xed. ὁ. for
St James ends the volume), or divisions in the text, but rubrical
marks added in a later hand. Mut. iv. 8—vii. 17; xvii. 28—xxiii. 9;
297 verses. Independent collations have been made by Tischendorf
(Anecd. sacra et prof. pp. 7, 8; 130—46), by Tregelles, and by Seri-
vener (Cod. Augiens. Introd. pp. lxviii—lxx). Its value is shewn
not so much by the readings in which it stands alone, as by its
agreement with the oldest uncial copies, where their testimonies
coincide.

The following codices also are described by Scrivener, Cod. Au-
giens. Introd. pp. lv—Ixiv, and their collations given in the Appendix.

a** (Paul. a) Lambeth 1182 [xu] 4°, chart., brought (as were also
bede) by Carlyle from a Greek island. A later hand [xtv] supplied
Act. i. 1—xii. 3; xiii. 5—15; 2, 3 John, Jude. In this copy and
b** the Pauline Epistles precede the Catholic (see p. 61). Lect., pict.,
κεφ., prol., syn. ἀποδημίαι παύλου, avtipwva for Easter, and other
foreign matter. The various readings are interesting, and strongly
resemble those of Cod. 69 of the Acts.

b** (Paul. Ὁ) Lambeth 1183 [dated 1358] 4°, chart., mut. 1 Cor.
xi. 7—27; 1 Tim. iv. l—v. 8. Syn., prol., κεφ. t., τίτλοι, xed., lect.,
in a beautiful hand, with many later corrections.

e* (Paul. c) Lambeth 1184 [xv] 4°, chart, mut. Act. vii. 52—
viii. 25. Having been restored in 1817 (see p. 180, Cod. u), its
readings (which, especially in the Catholic Epistles, are very import-
ant) are taken from an excellent collation (Lamb. 1255, 10—14)

OF THE ACTS AND CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 199

made for Carlyle about 1804 by the Rev. W. Sanderson of Mor-
peth.

d** (Paul. 4) Lamb. 1185 [x1v?] 4°, chart., miserably mutilated
and ill-written. It must be regarded as a collection of fragments in
at least four different hands, pieced together by the most recent
scribe. Mut. Act. ii, 36—iiil. 8; vii. 3—59; xii. 7—25; xiv. 8—27;
xvii. 20—xix. 12; xxii. 7—xxiii. 11; 1 Cor. viii. 12—ix. 18; 2 Cor.
i, 1—10; Eph. iii, 2—Phil. i. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 12—Tit. i. 6; Hebr.
vil. 19—ix. 12. We have 1 Cor. v. 11, 12; 2 Cor. x. 8—15, written
by two different persons. Lect., prol., xed. t. syn., in wretched
disorder.

e“* seems to have been Lambeth 1181 [xtv] 4° of the Acts,
Catholic and Pauline Epistles (as we learn from the Lambeth Cata-
logue), but having been returned (see p. 180) we have access only
to a tolerable collation of Act. 1. 1—xxvii. 12, made by the Rev.
John Fenton for Carlyle (Lamb. 1255, 27-33). In its text it much
resembles Cod. E (see p. 128).

i ΞΞ Evan. ἀν: ge (= Evan. 1),

h'* (=Evan. 201, Act. 91).

j Brit. Mus. Burney 48 [xrv] fol" chart., prol., κεφ. t., contains
the Catholic Epistles (except that of St Jude), with some uncommon
variations. This elegant copy begins fol. 221 of Vol. τι. of Chrysos-
tom’s Homilies on Galat.—Hebrews, k** (= Evan. w*").

At Middle Hill (see Cod. 178) 7681 is a copy of the Acts and all
the Epistles from the Hon. F. North’s Collection, dated 1107.

Cod. Boecleri (Paul. 248) [age not stated], on vellum, containing
the Acts, Catholic and Pauline Epistles, the last arranged as one
book, with a Prologue. It belongs to J. H. Boecler, Professor of
History at Strasburg; brought “a Graecis” by Steph. Gerlach, when
in the suite of Baron Ungnad, Imperial Embassador to the Porte.

From Haenel’s “Catalogus Libr. MSS.” (see p. 181) we add the
following: Basil. B. vi. 29, fol. contains the Acts, Catholic and twelve
Pauline Epistles with short prologues; Basil. B. τι. 5, 8°, of the Acts
and all the Epistles; six Escurial codices of the Acts: besides the
two (p. 181) containing the whole Ν T. Add also Lamy’s 207
(p. 181), Muralt’s 8? (see p. 178) and the Parham copies (see p. 182).
Including No. 6, which has been described above, these are four;
viz. No. 14 [dated a.p. 1009] 4°, from St Saba: ἃ facsimile is given in
the Catalogue: No. 15 [x1] 4°, from Caracalla, with a marginal para-
phrase: No. 16 [?] fol., from Simo Petra on Athos. These three
contain the Acts and all the Epistles.

In the Canonici collection at Oxford, besides No. 34 described
above (p. 184), is Canon. Gk. 110 [x] 4°, pict., a beautiful copy of the
Acts and all the Epistles, with Euthalius’ prol., xed. &c., one leaf
from Cyril’s Homilies, and two other later (Rev. H. Ὁ. Coxe). Add
also Bodleian. Miscell. 118, Auct. F. 6. 24 [xm] 4°, mzt., also con-
taining the Acts and all the Hpistles: Ject., syn., men., and St Paul
furnished with Euthalius’ matter.

200 ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

The following fourteen copies were seen by Mr Coxe in the East
(above, p. 185).

(a2) In the Patriarch’s Library at Cairo, Shelf 1, No. 8, all the
Epistles [x1v] 4°, chart. Shelf 4, No. 59, Acts and all the Epis-
tles [x1] 4. Shelf 5, No. 88, the same, with the Psalter [x1] fol.

(8) At the Greek Monastery at Jerusalem besides Nos. 7, 15,
which can be no other than Scholz’s 183—4, we must add Nos. 40,
45 from p. 185.

(y) At St Saba Scholz found five copies, 185—9, and Coxe no
larger number; although it is not easy to reconcile their statements.
Coxe’s No. 20, of the Acts, all the Epistles and Apocalypse [x1]
small 4°, a palimpsest on uncials [vir], will ill suit Scholz’s 187 or
189. Coxe’s No. 35, Acts and all the Epistles [x1] 4°, may be either
Scholz’s 185 or 188. Coxe’s other three contain the Gospels and
all the Epistles, No. 52 [x1] small 4°, syn.; No. 53 [x1] 4°; No. 54
[x11] 4°. See Scholz’s 186.

(ὃ) At Patmos both Scholz and Coxe observed two copies (Cod.
182), of the Acts and all the Epistles, Coxe’s No. 27 [x11] fol., with
marginal glosses, and No. 31 [gg] fol.

Tt will be remarked that Coxe’s dates are almost always earlier
than Scholz’s.

Dr Bloomfield collated ten copies of the Acts in the British
Museum. Six have been named in the foregoing list (Codd. 22; 25
—8; 59). The others are Addl. 11836, 16184, 17469 described under
the head of the Gospels (p. 186), and Addl. 11837 or Act. 91. .

Deducting twelve duplicates &c., our list contains 229 cursive
manuscripts of the Acts and Catholic Epistles.

Manuscripts of St Pauls Epistles.

Fly 6k Eigans 1). ES Ce) 8 3. (= Evan. 3),

4, (=Act. 4). 5. (=Evan. δ). 6. (= Evan. 6).

7. Basil. B. vi. 17[?] 4°, with notes and glosses, ends Hebr.
xii. 18.

8. (=Act. 50). Ona {= οι, Ts 10. (=Act. 8).

Il. (= Act. 9). 12. (=Act. 10).

13. Certain readings cited by J. le Fevre d’Etaples, in his Com-
mentary on St Paul’s Epistles, Paris, 1512.

14. (= Evan. 90). 15. A manuscript cited by Erasmus,
belonging to Amandus of Louvain.

16.» (=Act. 12). ἘΠ. (= Evan. 33).

18, (=Evan. 35). 19. (=Act, 16).

20. Coislin. 27, described (as is Cod. 23) by Montfaucon [x]
fol., in bad condition, with pro/. and a catena, from Athos (Wetstein).

OF ΚΤ PAUL'S EPISTLES. 201

aT (Aves, 17): 22; (= τον ΠΣ

23. Coislin. 28 from Athos [x1] fol., prod. and a Commentary
(Wetstein, Scholz).

24. (=Evan. 105). 25. (=Act. 20). 26. (= Act. 21).

27. Cambridge Univ. Libr. 1152, Ff. τ. 30 [xr and x1v?], with
a Commentary, chiefly Photius’: Rom. and 1, 2 Cor. are wanting
(Wetstein, 1716).

28, (=Act. 23), #29, (=Act. 24). τ. *30. (= Act. 53).

31. (=Act. 25). 32. (= Act. 26). 339.4) (= AMebezi):
*34. (=Act. 28). gon \— Act. 29): 36. (= Act. 30).
<ol. (—Byan:od), 38. (= Evan. 51). 39. (=Act. 33).
*40. (=Evan.61). 41. (= Evan. 57).

42. Magdalen Coll. Oxford, Greek 7 [x1] fol., contains Rom. 1,
2 Cor. surrounded by Oecumenius’ Commentary, prol. &c. (Walton’s
Polyglott, Mill).

43. (= Act. 37). *44, (= Act. 38).

τὸς (=Act. 39). 46. (=Act. 40).

47. Bodleian. Roe 16, Mill’s Roe 2 [xr or x11] fol., with a
Patristic Catena, in a small and beautiful hand, and a text much
resembling that of Cod. A: its history is the same as that of Evan.
49. The Epistle to the Hebrews precedes 1 Tim.: see p. 62, note.
(Mill).

"48, (=Act. 42). 49. (= Evan. 76). 50. (=Act. 52).

51. (=Evan. 82, Act. 44, Apoe. 5). 52. (= Act. 45).

53 of Wetstein is now Paul. Cod. M, the portion containing the
Hebrews, or Bengel’s Uffenbach 2 or 1 (see p. 139).

54. Monacensis 412 [x11] fol., is Bengel’s August. 5, containing
Rom. vii. 7—xvi. 24, with a Catena from twenty Greek authors
(see Cod. 127), stated by Bengel to resemble that in the Bodleian
described by Mill (N. T. Proleg. § 1448).

55. (=Act. 46).

56. Tigurinus, in the Public Library at Zurich, written in
1516, in the hand of the well-known Ulrich Zwingle. This is quite
worthless if Wetstein is correct in calling it a transcript of Erasmus’
first edition, then just published.

*57. (=Evan. 218). 58 Vat. 165, “olim Cryptoferratensis,”
of the Monastery of Crypta Ferrata, near Tusculum [x1] (Zacagni).

59 of Wetstein and Griesbach comprises readings of two Medi-
cean manuscripts of the Ephes. and Philipp., derived from the same
source as Evan. 102, Act. 56, Apoc. 23: Scholz silently substitutes
Coislin. 204 [xr] fol., with a Catena.

60. Codices cited in the Correctorium Bibliorum Latinorum (see
p. 153, note).

"OL. (= του ΟἿ᾽. 62. (= Act. 59). 63. (= Act. 60).

64 of Griesbach is the portion of Cod. M now in the British
Museum (sce p. 139).

202 ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

65. (= Act. 62).

66. Various readings extracted by Griesbach from the margin
of Harl. 5552, 4°, which itself he thinks but a transcript of Eras-
mus’ first edition (Symb. Crit. p. 166).

*67, (= Act. 66). 67** resembles Cod. B. 68. (= Act. 63).

*69. (=Act. 64). *7 0.0 (= τ

71. Caesar-Vindobon. Forlos. 19, Kollar. 10 [xm] 4°, mut.
Rom. i. 1—9; Titus; Philem., with Hebrews before 1 Tim. (see

p. 62, note 2). There is a Commentary and Catechetical lectures of
St Cyril of Jerusalem (Alter, Birch).

72. (=Evan. 234). 73, (= Act. 68).
74. (= Act. 69). 75. (Addl. 5116, = Act. 22).

*76. Biblioth. Paulinae Lipsiensis (Mt. s.) [xu] fol., contains
Rom., 1 Cor., Gal. and part of Eph., with Theophylact’s Commentary
(Matthaei).

Codd. 77—112 were cursorily collated by Birch, and nearly all
by Scholz.

77. (=Evan. 131). 78. (=Evan. 133).
To, oon To), 80. (=Act. 73),

81. Vat. 761 [x11] fol., with Oecumenius’ Commentary. The
Ep. to the Hebrews is wanting.

82. Vat. 762 [x11] fol., contains Rom., 1, 2 Cor., with a Catena.

83. Vat. 765 [x1] fol., with a Commentary.

84. Vat. 766 [xm] fol., with a Commentary,

85. (Apoc. 39) Vat. 1136 [xm] fol., contains first the Apoca-
lypse (beginning iii. 8) with a Latin version, then St Paul’s Epistles,
ending 1 Tim. vi. 5, with many unusual readings.

86. (= Evan. 141). 87. (= Evan. 142).
88. (= Evan. 149). 89. (Act. 78).
90. (=Act. 79). 91. ἘΞ οὐ Bu):
92. (=Evan. 180)’. 93. (=Act. 83).
94. (=Act. 84). 95. (= Act. 85).
96. (=Act. 86). oY. (=Ach, Sf).
98, (= Act. 88). 99. (= Act. 89).

100. Laurent. x. 4 [xm] fol., with a Commentary, and additional
scholia [xtv], from the Cistercian Monastery of 8. Salvator de Sep-
timo, in the diocese of Florence.

101. Laurent. x. 6 [x1] fol., with pro/. and a Catena supplying
the authors’ names.

1 Birch shews the connexion of Caryophilus with this important copy (which
much resembles the Leicester manuscript, Evan. Cod. 69) from James v. 5, and
especially from 3 John 5 μισθὸν for πιστὸν, a lectio singularis, See p. 157. In
this codex, as in those cited p. 62, note 2, Hebr. stands before 1 Tim.

2 The proper date of the later hand in this copy seems to be A.D. 1274. It is
written Yryrf, according to Engelberth, which must stand for A.M. 6782.

OF ST PAUL'S EPISTLES. 203

102. Laurent. x. 7 [x1] fol., syn., a life of Paul, and Catena
with such names as Theodoret, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Severia-
nus, &c.

103. Laurent. x. 19 [χη] fol., with syn. and a Catena. At
the end is a date “a.p. 1318, Ind. 1, Timotheus.”

*104. (= Evan. 201). 105. (=Evan. 204).
*106. (= Evan. 205). *107. (=Evan. 206).
*108. (=Evan. 209). * 109. "(AN Ct ΘΙ).

*110. Venet. 33 [x1] fol., with a Catena, much being taken from
Oecumenius (Rink, as also 111, 112: see Act. 96).

“111. Venet. 34 [x1] fol., with pro/. and a Commentary.

*112. Venet. 35 [x1] fol., with a Commentary, a fragment begin-
ning 2 Cor. i. 20, ending Hebr. x. 25; mut. 1 Thess. iv. 13—2 Thess.
ii, 14.
~ Codd. 113—124 were collated by Matthaei.

*113. (= Act. 98). *114, (= Act. 99).
*115. (=Act. 100). *116. (= Act. 101).
*117. (=Act. 102). 5118. (=Act. 103).

119. Mosq. Synod. 292 (Mt. i) [x11] 4°, from the monastery of
Pantocrator on Athos, contains 1, 2 Corinth. with Theophylact’s
Commentary.

*120. (=Evan. 241). *121. (= Evan. 242).

12... (= Act; 1106),

*123. Synod. 99 (Mt. n) [x1] fol., with scholia, from St Athana-
sius’ monastery on Athos.

*124, Synod. 250 (Mt. q) [xrv] 8°, on cotton paper, from the
monastery of Batopedion(?) on Athos, contains Rom. i.—xiii. with
Theophylact’s Commentary and other writings.

Codd. 125—246 were first catalogued by Scholz, who professes
to have collated entire 177—179, in the greater part 157, the rest
slightly or not at all,

125. Monacensis 504 at Munich, Reisser 5, once August. 8
[dated 1 Feb. 1387, Indict. 10] 8°, on cotton paper, with Theophy-
lact’s Commentary in black ink, and the text (akin to it) in red.
Bought by Nicetas “ primicerius sceuophylactus” for eight golden
ducats of Rhodes". ut. Philemon.

126. Monacens. 455, Reisser 19, Hoeschel 35, once August. 13,
is either a copy of Cod. 125, or derived from the same manuscript
[dated Feb. 17, Indict. 12, probably 1389] fol., chart., also mut.
Philem.; with Theophylact’s Commentaries, and some homilies of
Chrysostom.

127. Monacens. 110 [xvi] fol., chart., once at the Jesuits’ Col-
lege, Munich, contains Rom. vii, 7—ix. 21, with a Catena. It was

1 The gold ducat coined for the Military order of St John at Rhodes (sce
Ducange) was worth 98. 6d. English money.

204 ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

found by Scholz to be, what indeed it professes, a mere copy of
part of Cod. 54.

128. (=Act. 179).
129. Monacens. 35 [xvi] fol., chart., with a Catena.

130. (= Evan. 43). 131. (= Evan. 330).
*132. (=Evan. 18: see Act. 113). 133. (= Act. 51).
*134. (= Act. 114). 135. (=Act. 115).

136. (= Act. 116). *137. (=Evan. 263).

158)) (Act, 118): #139. (= Act. 119) Reiche, as also
*140. (= Act. 11). 141. (=Act. 120).

142. (= Act. 121). 143. (= Act. 122),

144. (=Act. 123).

145. Reg. 108, once Colbert’s, as were 146—8 [xvi] 8°, contains
from Philipp. to Timothy, with prol.

146. Reg. 109 [xvi] 8°, contains Rom. with prol., and the ὑπό-
θεσις to 1 Corinth.

147. Reg. 110 [dated 1511] 8°, contains 1, 2 Corinth.

148. Reg. 111 [xvi], contains Titus, Philem., Hebrews. Codd.
145—8 are surely the divided portions of the same manuscript.

149. (= Act. 124). 150. (=Act. 125).

151. Reg. 126 [xv] 12°, written (like 149) by Angelus Ver-
gecius (see p. 38, note 2).

152. (Apoc. 60) Reg. 136" [ 1] 8°, contains the Hebrews,
Apoce., and a life of St Alexius.

*153. (= Act. 126) Reiche. 154. (=Act. 127).
155. (= Act. 128). 156. (= Act. 129).

157. Reg. 222, once Colbert’s [x1] fol., brought from Constan-
tinople 1676, with pro/. and a Commentary. Mut. Rom. i. 1—11;
21—29; i. 26—iv. 8; ix. 11—22; 1 Cor. xv. 22—43; Col. i. 1—6.

158. Y= Act. 131).

159, (Apoc. 64) Reg. 224 [x1] fol., very elegant. The Pauline
Epistles have prol. and a Catena, the Apocalypse Arethas’ Com-
mentary.

160. Reg. 225 [xvi] fol. chart., a fragment of St Paul with
Theophylact’s Commentary.

161. Reg. 226 [xv1] fol. chart., contains the Romans with a
Commentary.

162. Reg. 227, once Bigot’s [xvi] fol., chart., only contains a
Catena on 1 Cor. xvi.

163. Reg. 238 [xi] 8°, from Adrianople, contains Hebr, i—
vill. with a Catena.

164. Reg. 849, once a Medicean manuscript [xvi] fol., contains
Theodoret’s Commentary with the text in the margin.

165. Taurinens. 284, 1. 39, at Turin [xvi] chart., contains from
1 Thess. to Hebrews.

OF ST PAUL’S EPISTLES. 205

166. (= Act. 133). 101. © Ae 134):

108. Taurin. 325, τι. 38 [xu] fol., with pro/. and a Commentary :
it begins Rom. iii. 19.

ΠΟ ΞΕ οὐ 136): 170. (= Evan. 339).

171. Ambros. 6, at Milan [xsi] fol., with a Commentary: it
ends Hebr. iv. 7, and Rom. i. 1—2 Cor. v. 19 are later, on cotton
paper.

112. Ambros. 15 [xm] fol., with an abridgment of Chrysos-
tom’s Commentary: bought at Reggio in Calabria, 1606.

175. (= At: 138). 174. (=Act. 139).

175. Ambros. 125 [xv] fol., chart., with a continuous Comment-
ary: it was brought from Thessaly.

Lit. (EG -Ach, 1371).

*177. Mutinens. 14 (Ms. τι. A. 14), at Modena [xv] 16°.

Fie. (Act. 142):

*179 is Cod. H of Act.: see p.129. The Pauline Epistles with
a Commentary are [xu].

180. (= Evan. 363). 181. (= Evan. 365).
182. (=Evan. 367). 183. (=Act. 147).
184. (= Act. 148). 185. (= Evan. 393).
186. (= Evan. 394). 187. (Acts 152):

188. . (Ξ Α.6ι..165)

189. Vat. 1649 [xm] [Ὁ]., with Theodoret’s Commentary:
Hebr. precedes 1 Tim. (p. 62, note 2).

LOS Act 156): ot. (Acie lon)

192. (= Act. 158). 193. (—Act. 160).

194. (= Evan. 175).

195. Vat. Ottob. 31 [x] fol., mué. Rom. and most of 1 Cor.;
with a continuous Commentary, and such names as Oecumenius,
Theodoret, Methodius, occasionally mentioned.

196. Vat. Ottob. 61 [xv] 8°, chart., with a Commentary: here

as in Cod. 189 the Epistle to the Hebrews precedes 1 Tim. So
perhaps Cod. 217.

197. (Αροο. 78) Vat. Ottob. 176 [xv] 8°, chart.

198:0\E Act) hel): 199. (= Evan. 386).

200. (= Act. 162). 201. (= Act. 163).

202. Vat. Ottob. 356 [xv] 4°, chart. “olim Aug. ducis ab Al-

tamps,” contains Rom. with a Catena.
203. (= Evan. 390). 204. (=Act. 166).
205. (= Act. 168). 206. (= Act. 169).
207. Ghigian. R. v. 32, at Rome [xv] 4°, chart., with a Com-
mentary.
208. Ghigian. vit. 55 [x1] fol., with Theodoret’s Commentary.
209. (=Act. 171). 210. (= Act. 172).

200 ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

211. (=Act. 173). 212. (=Act. 174).

213. Barberin. 29 [dated 1338] prol., scholia.

214. Caesar-Vindobon. theol. 167, Lambec. 46 [xv] 4°, on cot-
ton paper, contains Rom. with a Catena, 1 Corinth. with Chrysos-
tom’s and Theodoret’s Commentaries, which influence the readings of
text.

215. (=Act. 140). 216." (= Act 179.

217. Bibl. Reg. Panormi (Palermo) [xm] 4°, begins 2 Cor. iv.
18; mut. 2 Tim. i. 8—ii. 14; ends Hebr. 11. 9.

218. (=Evan. 421). *219. (= Evan. 122).
220. (= Evan. 400). *221. (= Evan. 440) is οἶδ.

222, 223 (= Evan. 441, 442) must be erased.

224. (= Act. 58).

225. (=Act. 112), erase: it is the same as Cod. 11.
226, erase: it is the same as Cod. 27.

227. (=Act. 56 of Scholz). 228. (= Evan. 226).

229. (= Evan. 228). 230. (= Evan. 368).
231. (=Act. 183). 232. (=Act. 184).
233. (= Act. 185). 234. (= Evan. 457).
235. (= Evan. 462). 236. (=Act. 188).
237. (=Evan. 466). 238. (= Evan. 431).
239. (= Evan. 189). 240. (= Evan. 444).
241. (=Act. 97). 242, (=Act. 178).
243. (=Act. 182), two codices. 244. (=Act. 190).
245. (=Act. 191). 246. (=Act. 192).

Tischendorf adds to Scholz’s list

247. Library of St Genevieve at Paris, 4, A. 35 [xiv] all the
Pauline Epistles.

248. Cod. Boecleri, described under Act. p. 199.

To this list we must add the following collated in Scrivener’s
Cod. Augiensis, Appendia: a’ (=Act. a) ὉΠ (=Act. b). oc
(=Act. c). d*™ (=Act. d). e' (Apoc. 93) Lambeth 1186 [x1] 4°
(see the facsimile in the Catalogue of Manuscripts at LamBeth, 1812),
begins Rom. xvi. 15, ends Apoc. xix. 4; mut. 1 Cor. iv. 19—vi. 1;
x. 1—21; Hebr. 111. 14—ix. 19; Apoc. xiv. 16—xv. 7. Lect. The
Epistles have prol., τίτλοι, κεῴ., and a few marginal notes. f**
(= Evan. q’*). ρος (= Evan. I"), h*™ (= Evan. 201). j** (= Evan.
πα), Καὶ (=Evan. w*"),

Haenel adds the two Basle codices described under the Acts,
and four at the Escurial: besides the two (p. 181) containing the
whole N. Τὶ There remain Lamy 207 (p. 181); the four Parham
copies enumerated above, p. 199; three copies at Oxford (see p. 199) ;
five seen by Mr Coxe (p. 200) more than by Scholz; to which we
must add Coxe’s Patmos No. 24 [xi] 4°, Rom. 1, 2 Cor. with scholia ;
and Muralt’s 8” as in the Acts (see p. 199).

OF THE APOCALYPSE. 207

Dr Bloomfield collated nine codices of the Epistles at the British
Museum; viz. the four Covell copies (Paul. 31—34); Addl. 11837 or
Paul. 104; Addl. 11836 described p. 186, and Addl. 5540, 5742,
19389.

He does not seem to have touched Addl. 17469 of the whole
N. Τ᾿, save in the Gospels and Acts. There is also at the B. Museum,
apparently quite uncollated: Addl. 7142 [xm] 4°, the Pauline
Epistles with marginal scholia, with a life of St Paul prefixed, prol.,
κεφ. ¢., τίτλοι, mut., lect., the last mostly 8. m.

Deducting 14 duplicates &c., we find 283 cursive manuscripts of
St Paul’s Epistles.

Manuscripts of the Apocalypse.

1. Codex Reuchlini, the only one used by Erasmus (who calls
it exemplar vetustissimum), and now lost, contained the Comment-
ary of Andreas of Caesarea, mut. xxii. 16—21.

2. (= Act. 10, Stephens’ ce’).

3. Codex Stephani cc’, unknown; cited only 77 times throughout
the Apocalypse in Stephens’ edition of 1550, and that very irregu-
larly; only once (xx. 3) after xvii. 8. It was not one of the copies
in the King’s library, and the four citations noticed by Mill (N. Τὶ
Proleg. § 1176) from Luke xxii. 30; 67; 2 Cor. xii. 11; 1 Tim. iii. 3
are probably mere errors of Stephens’ press.

A (et),
5. Codices Laurentii Vallae (see Evan. 82); the readings of

which Erasmus used. 6. (=Act. 23).
Miles ΞΟ ΟΣ 8. [Ξ- Gi 29, ὁ ἢ
9. (Act. 30). 10. (=Evan. 60). 1 “(= Atet, 90}
12. (=Act. 40). Ἐ15.. (Acts. 42).

*14) Ξε νη: 69. [5
15. Fragments of ch. iii. iv. annexed to Cod. EK Evan. (see p. 103),
in a later hand. 16. (=Act. 45). 17. (= Evan. 35).

18. (= Act. 18). 19. (=Act. 17).

20. (=Evan. 175), a few extracts made by Blanchini: so
Cod. 24.

21, 22 of Wetstein were two unknown French codices, cited by
Bentley in his specimen of Apoe. xxii., and his 23 (= Act. 56). Scholz,
discarding these three as doubtful, substitutes Cod. 21 Cod. Vallicell.
D. 20 [xiv] fol., chart., with Andreas’ Comment.: Cod. 22. (= Act.
166): Cod. 23. (= Evan. 38), which he says he collated cursorily.
But whatever readings he cites under these three numbers, are simply
copied from Wetstein! (Kelly’s Levelation, Introd. p. xi, note).

24. (= Act. 160). 25. (= Evan. 149).

208 ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

26. (Apostol. 57). Wake 12 [x1] large folio, brought from Con-
stantinople in 1731, and now in the Library of Christ Church, Ox-
ford, contains the Gospels (see p. 182), with lessons from the Acts and
Epistles. Codd. 6, 26, 27, 28 were rather loosely collated for Wetstein
by his kinsman Caspar Wetstein, chaplain to Frederick, Prince of
Wales.

27. (=Act. 190). This copy is fully described above, p. 183.

*28. Cod. Baroce. 48 in the Bodleian, contains mixed matter by
several hands (see p. 61), and is n** of the Apocalypse [xv] 4°, chart.,
mut. xvii. 5—xxii. 21: τίτλοι, κεφ. (v. 1—5 is repeated in the volume
in a different hand). This is an important copy.

*29. (Act. 60, e™). 30. (= Act. 69).

*31. Cod. Harleian. 5678 is c**, but i—viii. had been loosely
collated for Griesbach by Paulus [xv] 4°, chart. Like Cod. 445 Evan.,
it once belonged to the Jesuits’ College at Agen, and is important
for its readings. As in Codd. 28, 32, 35, 38, 43, 49, 50, 58, 60,
65, 68, 81, there is much miscellaneous matter in this volume.

32. Codex Dresdensis, antea Loescheri, deinde Briihlii [x Griesb.
xv Scholz] 8°, collated by Dassdorf and Matthaei, seems important.
Ts this the same codex as Act. 107, Evst. 57% The close resemblance
in the text of Codd. 29—32 is somewhat overstated by Griesbach.

*33. (= Evan. 218). *34. (=Act. 66).

35. Caesar-Vindobon. Lambec. 248 [xiv] 4°, with Andreas’
Comment.: brought from Constantinople by Busbeck (Alter).

36. Caesar-Vindobon. Forlos. 29, Kollar. 26 [xrv] 8°, ends
xix. 20, with Andreas: the text is in στίχοι (Alter).

37. (= Act. 72).

*38, Vatic. 579 [xi] 8°, cotton paper, in the midst of foreign
matter. The text (together with some marginal readings priméd
manu) closely resembles that of Codd. AC, and was collated by Birch,
inspected by Scholz and Tregelles, and lately recollated by B. H.
Alford (see on Cod. T, p. 116).

39. (=Paul. 80): 40. (= Evan. 141).

41. Alexandrino-Vat. 69 [xiv] chart., with extracts from Oecu-
menius and Andreas’ Com. (Birch, Scholz: so Cod. 43).

42. (=Act. 80).

43. Barberini 23 [xtv] 4°, contains xiv. 17—xviii. 20, with a
Commentary, together with portions of the Septuagint.

44, (=Evan. 180). 45. (=Act. 89). 46. (= Evan. 209).

*47, (= Evan. 241). *48, (=Evan. 242).

*49, Moscow, Synod. 67 (Mt. 0) [xv] fol., chart., with Andreas’
Comment., and Gregory Nazianzen’s Homilies.

*50, Synod. 206 (Mt. p) [x11] fol., like Evan. 69, 206, 233, is
partly of parchment, partly paper, from the Iberian monastery on
Athos; it also contains lives of the Saints.

ἜΡΟΝ Also from the Iberian monastery [x] is Matthaei’s r.

OF THE APOCALYPSE. 209

Codd. 51—88 were added to the list by Scholz, of which he pro-
fesses to have collated Cod. 51 entirely, as Reiche has done after
him; Codd. 68, 69, 82 nearly entire; twenty-one others cursorily,
the rest (apparently) not at all. Cod. 87 is Scrivener’s m, collated
in the Apocalypse only.

“pi, {ΞΞΊ νει. 18); 52: εἰ οὶ 51). Day 7 (= οι 110):

54, (=Evan. 263). 55. (=Act. 118). 0. vies Cte EE),

57. (= Act. 124).

58. Paris, Reg. 19, once Colbert’s [xvi] fol., chart., with “ Hiob
et Justini cohort. ad Graec.” Scholz.

59. Reg. 99" [xvi] chart., with a Commentary. Once Giles de
Noailles’. ρ (= Pauls 152);

61. Reg. 491, once Colbert’s [x1] 4°, on cotton paper, mut.,
with pieces from Basil, &e.

62. Reg. 239—40 [xv1] 4°, chart., with Andreas’ Commentary.
63. Reg. 241, once De Thow’s, then Colbert’s [xvi] 4°, chart.,

with Andreas’ Comment. 64. (= Paul. 159).
65. University Library at Moscow, 25 (once Coislin’s 229) [1],
contains xvi. 20—xxii. 21. 66. (=Evan. 131).

67. Vat. 1743 [dated 5 Decembr. 1302], with Andreas’ Com-
mentary.

68. Vat. 1904 [x1] 4°, contains vii. 17—viii. 12; xx. 1—xxi.
21, with Arethas’ Commentary, and much foreign matter. This
fragment (as also Cod. 72 according to Scholz, who however never
cites it) agrees much with Cod. A. 69:09 (= Act. Tel).

70. (= Evan. 386). 71. (©Evan. 390).

72. Cod. Ghigianus R. iv. 8 [xvi] 8°, chart., with Andreas’ Com-
mentary. The same description suits 73, in the Corsini Library 838.

714. (=Act. 140). To.) (= Act, 6G). 76. (= Act. 147).

77. Cod. Laurent. vii. 9 at Florence [xv] 4°, chart., with
Arethas’ Commentary. 19.) (=]=Pawl1g 7).

79. Cod. Monacensis 248, at Munich ; once Sirlet’s, the Apos-
tolic chief notary (see Evst. 132) [xv1] 4°, chart., with Andreas’
Comment., whose text it follows. That excellent and modest scholar
Fred. Sylburg collated it for his edition of Andreas, 1596, one of
the last labours of his diligent life.

80. Monacens. 544 (Bengel’s Augustan. 7) [xm Sylburg, xiv
Scholz, who adds that it once belonged to the Emperor Manuel, who
died a.p. 1180] 4°, on cotton paper, with Andreas’ Commentary.

81. Monacensis 23 [xv1] fol., chart., with works of Gregory
Nyssen, and Andreas’ Commentary, used by Theod. Peltanus for
his edition of Andreas, Ingoldstadt 1547. Peltanus’ marginal notes
from this copy were seen by Scholz. 2. (Act. 179).

83. (= Evan. 339): much like Codd. AC.

1 Unless indeed he means Manuel II., the son of Palaeologus, who visited
England in 1400, the guest and suppliant of Henry IV.

210 ON THE CURSIVE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS, &c.

84. (=Evan. 368). 85. (= Act. 184).

86. (= Evan. 462), thrice cited ineunte libro (Tischend.).

86°. (=Evan. 466). *87.''"(= Act, 178).

88. (=Evan. 205). 89. Tischend. = 86? Scholz.

90. Tischend. = 50° Scholz (Mt. 1).

91. Mico’s collation of the modern Supplement [xv] to the great
Cod. B, published in Ford’s Appendix to the Codex Alexandrinus
1799.

92. (=Evan. 61) published by Dr Barrett 1801 in his Appen-
dix to Cod. Z, but suspected to be a later addition.

Wm. Kelly, “ Zhe Revelation of John edited in Greek, with a new
English Version” 1860, thus numbers Scrivener’s recent collations of
six copies not included in the foregoing catalogue:

93. (= Paul. e™) a. 94. (= Evan. 201) b™.

95. Cod. Parham 17, g** [xm or x11] 4°, brought by the Hon.
R. Curzon in 1837 from Caracalla on Athos: it contains an epitome of
the Commentary of Arethas, in a cramped hand much less distinct
than the text, which ends at xx. 11. There are no divisions into
chapters.

96. Parham 2, h** [x1tv] 4°, κεφ., on glazed paper, very neat, also
from Caracalla, complete and in excellent preservation, with very
short scholia here and there.

97, 98 both contain the whole New Testament, without Com-
mentaries, but have hitherto been collated only for this book,

97. Brit. Mus. Addit. 17469, j** [x1v] fol. (see p. 186) is full of
interesting variations.

98. Canonici 34 in the Bodleian, k** [dated in the Apocalypse
July 18, 1516] 4°, chart.: see above, p. 184. The Pauline Epistles
(dated Oct. 11, 1515) precede the Acts (see p. 61). This copy much
resembles Cod. 30, and is of considerable value.

Haenel adds one copy from the Escurial, and the two at Arras
and Poictiers (p. 181). Evan. 206, Act. 94, Paul. 107, seems
also to contain the Apocalypse, but to be a copy of Cod. 46 (see
p- 164).

Mr Coxe saw but two codices of the Apocalypse in the East
(Jerusalem No. 15; S. Saba No. 20), though Scholz speaks of one
more at St Saba, and no doubt correctly. Dr Bloomfield states that
he collated four in the British Museum, but does not name them;
they are probably included in our catalogue.

We have enumerated 102 cursive manuscripts of the Apocalypse.

Section LY.

On the Lectionaries, or Manuscript Service-books of the Greek

Church.

HoweEVER grievously the great mass of cursive manuscripts
of the New Testament has been neglected by Biblical critics,
the Lectionaries of the Greek Church, partly for causes pre-
viously stated (p. 63), have received even less attention at
their hands. Yet no sound reason can be alleged for regard-
ing the testimony of these Service-books as of slighter value
than that of other witnesses of the same date and character.
The necessary changes interpolated in the text at the com-
mencement and sometimes at the end of lessons are so sim-
ple and obvious that the least experienced student can make
allowance for them: and if the same passage is often given
in a different form when repeated in the same Lectionary,
although the fact ought to be recorded and borne in mind,
this occasional inconsistency must no more militate against
the reception of the general evidence of the copy that ex-
hibits it, than it excludes from our roll of critical authori-
ties the works of Origen and other Fathers, in which the
selfsame variation is even more the rule than the exception.
Dividing, therefore, the Lectionaries that have been hitherto
catalogued (which form indeed but a small portion of those
known to exist in Eastern monasteries and Western libraries)
into Evangelistaria containing the Gospels, and Praxapostoli
or Apostoli comprising extracts from the Acts and Epistles,
(see p. 63); we purpose to mark with an asterisk the few
that have been really collated, including them in the same
list with the majority which have been examined super-
ficially, or not at all. Uncial copies (some as late as the
eleventh century: see p. 26) will be distinguished by f.
The uncial codices of the Gospels amount to 58, those of
the Acts and Epistles only to six or perhaps seven, for Cod.
40 is doubtful.

14—2

212 ON THE LECTIONARIES, OR MANUSCRIPT

Evangelistaria or Evangeliaria, containing the Gospels.

tl. Regius 278 Paris, once Colbert’s [vir 1] fol., mut. (Wetstein,
Scholz).

12. Reg. 280, once Colbert’s [1x] fol., maé. (Wetstein, Scholz).

+3. Wheeler 3, Lincoln College, Oxford No. 15 [x] 4°, (Mill).

4. Cantab. Dd. 8. 49, or Moore 2 [x1] 4°, syn., men., cursive
(Mill).

+5. Bodleian. Baroce. 202, or Mill’s Bodl. 3 [x?, but wndated]
mut., initio et fine (Mill, Wetstein).

*+6. (Apostol. 1). Lugduno-Batav. 243, once Scaliger’s [x1],
chart., with an Arabic version, contains the Praxapostolos, Psalms,
and but a few Lessons from the Gospels (Wetstein, Dermout).

7. Reg. 301, once Colbert’s, as were 8—12; 14—17 [written by
George, a priest, in 1205] fol. (Codd. 7-12; 14—17 were slightly
collated by Wetstein, Scholz).

8. Reg. 312 or 302 teste Tischendorf. [x1v] fol., written by
Cosmas, a monk.

9. Reg. 307 [x1] fol. 10. Reg. 287 [xr] fol., made.

11. Reg. 309 [x11] fol., mae. 12. Reg. 310 [x11] fol., mut.

+13. Coislin. 31 [x] fol., most beautifully written, the first seven
pages in gold, the next fifteen in vermilion, the rest in black ink,
pict., described by Montfaucon (Scholz). Wetstein’s 13 (Colbert.
1241 or Reg. 1982) contains no Evangelistarium.

14. Reg. 315 [xv] fol., chart.

15. Reg. 302 [x11] fol., mat.

16. Reg. 297 [xu] fol., much mut.

17. Reg. 279 [xu] fol., mzt., (Tischendorf seems to have con-
founded 13 and 17 in his WV. 7. Proleg. p. cexvi. 7th edition).

18. Bodl. Laud. Gk. 32, or Laud. D. 121, Mill’s Bodl. 4 [x1] fol.,
much mut., beginning John iv. 53. Codd. 18—22 were partially
examined by Griesbach after Mill.

19. (Apost. Paul. 3, Griesbach). Bodl. 3048, or Mise. 10, Auct.
D. Infr. 2. 12; Mill’s Bodl. 5 [xu] fol., mut., with musical notes,
rubro: given in 1661 by Parthenius, Patriarch of Constantinople,
to Heneage Finch, Earl of Winchelsea, our Embassador there. This
and Cod. 18 are said by Mill to be much like Stephens’ ς΄, Evan. 7

20. Bodl. Laud. 34, Mill’s Laud 4 [written by Onesimus, April
1047, Indiction 15] 4°, mut.

1 Laud. Gk. 36, which in the Bodleian Catalogue is described as an Evangelis-
tarium, is a collection of Church Lessons from the Septuagint read in Lent and
the Holy Week, such as we described above, pp. 64, 73. It has red musical notes,
and seems once to have borne the date A.D. 1028.

SERVICE-BOOKS OF THE GREEK CHURCH. 213

21. Bodl. 3386, or Selden 49, Mill’s Selden 4 [xrv] 4°, coarsely
written; a mere fragment, as is also

22. Bodl. 3384, or Seld. 47, Seld. 5 of Mill [x1v] 4°, mué., with
Patristic homilies [x1].

+23. Mead’s, then Askew’s, then D’Eon’s, by whom it was sent
to France. Wetstein merely saw it.

+24. Monacensis 383 (August. 4 of Bengel) [x] fol., maé. (Bengel,
Scholz). Is this the Cod. Radzivil, with slightly sloping uncials,
[v1], of which Silvestre gives a facsimile (Paléogr. Univ. No. 68)?

25. Mus. Brit. Harleian. 5650 [x11] 4°, a palimpsest, whose later
writing is by Nicephorus the reader. The older writing, now illegi-
ble, was partly uncial, mut.

25” represents a few Lessons in the same codex by a later, yet
contemporary hand (Bloomfield). Codd. 25—30 were very partially
collated by Griesbach.

26. (Apost. 28). Bodleian. 3390, Seld. 1, or Mill’s Seld. 2 [xr]
4°, mut. a palimpsest, but the earlier uncial writing is illegible, and
the codex in a wretched state, in several hands.

127. Bodl. 3391, Seld. 2, or Mill’s Seld. 3, a palimpsest [1x
uncial, xIv later writing] 4°, mzt., in large ill-formed characters.
Codd. 26, 27 were collated by Mangey, 1749 (see p. 183), but his
papers appear to be lost.

28. Bodl. Mise. 11, Auct. D Infra 2. 14, Marsh 22 [xin] 4°,
mut., in two careless hands.

29. Bodl. Misc. 12, Auct. D Infra 2. 15, Marsh 23 [xm] 4°,
mut. Elegantly written but much worn.

30. (Apost. Paul. 5, Griesbach). Bodl. 296, now Cromwell 11
[the whole written 1225 by Michael, a χωρικὸς καλλιγράφος] 4°,
containing Prayers and some Lessons from the Gospels (including
εὐαγγέλια ἀναστασιμά : see p. 72) and Epistles (Griesbach).

31. Cod. Norimberg. [xu] 4°, (Doederlein). Its readings are
stated by Michaelis to resemble those of Codd. DL. 1. 69.

*32. Cod. Gothanus, in the Library of the Duke of Saxe Gotha
[x11] fol., carelessly written. Kdited by Matthaei, 1791.

+33. Cod. Cardinalis Alex. Albani [1x] 4°, a menology edited
by Steph. Ant. Morcelli, Rome 1788.

194. Monacens. 229, from Mannheim [x] 4°, elegantly written,
in three volumes, the contents being in unusual order, and the
menology suiting the custom of a monastery on Athos (Rink, Scholz).

Codd. 35—39 were inspected or collated by Birch, 40—43 by
Moldenhawer.

35." Vatic. 351 [x or x1] fol., contains only the lessons for holi-
days.

*+36. Vat. 1067 [x1] fol., a valuable copy, completely collated.

1 1 follow Birch’s description. Scholz (whom Horne and Tischendorf merely

copy) has given to this Cod. Vat. 351 the date and description which belong to
Cod. Vat. 354, or S of the Gospels.

214 ON THE LECTIONARIES, OR MANUSCRIPT

37. (Apost. 7). Propaganda 287, Borgia 3 [x1] 4°, contains
only 13 lessons from the Gospels.
38. Laurent. Florent. 1, and

39. Florent. 2, formerly in the Palace, and neatly written, are
only once cited by Birch.

+40. Escurial I. [x] 4°, kept with the reliques there as an auto-
graph of St Chrysostom. It was given by Queen Maria of Hun-
gary (who obtained it from Jo. Diassorin) to Philip II. Molden-
hawer, who relates its history in a scofting spirit, was only allowed
to see it for a few hours, and collated 15 lessons. The text is of
the common type, but in the oblong shape of the letters, false spirits
and accents, the red musical notes &c., it resembles Evst. Cod. 1,
though its date is somewhat lower.

141. Escur. x. III. 12 [x] 4°, very elegant: the menology (as also
that of Cod. 43) suited to the use of a Byzantine church.

142. Escur. x. III. 13 [1x or x] 4°, met. at the beginning. Two
hands appear, the earlier leaning a little to the right.

43. Escur. yx. II]. 16 [xr or xu] 4°, mut. at the beginning, in
large cursive letters, with full men.

44, (Apost. 8). Havniens. 3 [xv] mzé., and much in a still
later hand. Its history resembles that of Evan. 234—5 (Hensler).

+45. Caesar-Vindobon., Lambec. 15, Nessel 5 [x] fol., six
leaves from the binding of a law-book: the letters resemble the
Tubingen fragment, Griesbach’s R (see p. 114) or Wetstein’s 98
(Alter).

+46. Vindobon. Forlos. 23, Kollar. 7 [1x], on purple vellum,
with gold and silver letters. There is a Latin version (Blanchini,
Treschow, Alter). Silvestre has a facsimile, Pal. Univ. No. 69.

+*47. Moscow, 8. Synod. 43 (Matthaei B) [vi] fol., “a barbaro
scriptus est, sed ex praestantissimo exemplari,” Matthaei, whose
codices extend down to 97.

*48, Synod. 44 (Mt. c) [written by Peter, a monk, a.p. 1056]
fol., from the Iberian monastery on Athos. In 1312 it belonged
to Nicephorus, Metropolitan of Crete.

*49, Typograph. Synod. 11 (Mt. f) [x and later] fol., pict.
Superior in text to Cod. 48, but much in a later hand.

+*50. Typograph. Synod, 12 (Mt. H) [vitr?] Ὁ]. A very valu-
able copy, whose date Matthaei placed unreasonably high.

*51. Typograph. Syn. 9 (Mt. ὃ) [xvi] 4°, chart.

Ἐδῶ, (Apost. 16) Synod. 266 (Mt. δ) [x1v] 4°, contains an Eu-
chology and ἀποστολοευαγγέλια (see p. 63), as also do 53, 54, 55.

*53. (Apost. 17). Synod. 267 (Mt. y) [xrv or xv] 4°, chart., from
the monastery of Simenus on Athos.

*54. (Apost. 18). Synod. 268 (Mt. y) [written a.p. 1470, by
Dometius, a monk] 4°, chart., from Batopedion monastery on Athos.

*55. (Apost. 19). Typogr. Syn. 47 (Mt. ὦ) [the Apost. copied
at Venice 1602] 4°, chart., wretchedly written.

SERVICE-BOOKS OF THE GREEK CHURCH. 215

*56. (Apost. 20). Typogr. Syn. 9 (Mt. 16) [xv or xvi] 16°,
chart., fragments of little value. “Di. (=Act. [07).

Codd. 58—181 were added to the list by Scholz, who professes
to have collated entire Cod. 60; in the greater part 81. 86.

58. Paris Reg. 50 a [xv] 4°, chart., brought from some church
in Greece.

ὅθ. Reg. 100 A [xvi] fol.

*60. (Apost. 12). Reg. 375, once Colbert’s, formerly de Thou’s
[written A.D. 1022 by Helias, a priest and monk, “in castro de Colo-
nia,’ for the use of the French monastery of St Denys] 8°; it con-
tains many valuable readings (akin to those of Codd. ADE), but
numerous errors.

101. Reg. 182 [x] 4°, a fragment. 62. Reg. 194 A [xim1] fol.

+63. Reg. 277 [1x] fol., mat. at the beginning and end.

+64. Reg. 281 [1x] fol., from Constantinople; many leaves
are torn.

+65. Reg. 282 [1x] fol., a palimpsest, with a Church-service in
later writing ‘pan.

+66. Reg. 283 [1x] fol., also a palimpsest, with the older writing
of course misplaced ; the later ( se mut.) a Church-service [x1].

+67. Reg. 284 [x1] fol., “ optimae notae,” with musical
marks, &c.

68. Reg. 285, once Colbert’s [x1] fol., mu#., initio et fine.

69. Reg. 286 [x1] fol., fine mut.

70. Reg. 288 [x1] fol., brought from the East in 1669. <A few
leaves at the beginning and end later, chart.

71. Reg. 289, once Colbert’s [written July 1066 by John, a
priest, for George, a monk] fol., mut., partly on vellum, partly on
cotton paper.

72. Reg. 290 [written by Nicholas, pee fol. To this codex
is appended

+72 Ὁ, three uncial leaves [1x] containing John vy. 1—11; vi.
61—69; vii. 1—15.

73. Reg. 291 [x11] fol., mut.

74. Reg. 292, once Mazarin’s [x11] fol.

75. Reg. 293, from the East [x11] fol.

76. Reg. 295, once Colbert’s [x11] fol., mde.
77. Reg. 296 [x11] fol., from Constantinople.

78. Reg. 298, once Colbert's [xit] fol., mué. Some hiatus are
supplied later on cotton paper.

79. Reg. 299 [x11] fol., mad. initio et fine.
80. Reg. 300 [x11] fol.

216 ON THE LECTIONARIES, OR MANUSCRIPT

81. Reg 305 [xm] fol., perhaps written in Egypt. Some pas-
sages supplied [xv] on cotton paper.

82. (Apost. 31). Reg. 276 [xv] fol., chart., with lessons from
the Prophets.

83. (Apost. 21). Reg. 294 [x1] fol.

84. (Apost. 9) Reg. 32 a, and

85. (Apost. 10) Reg. 33 a, both [xm] fol. have lessons from the
Old and New Testament.

86. Reg. 311 [written July 1336, Indict. 4, by Charito] fol.,

given by the monk Ignatius to the monastery τῶν ὁδηγῶν or Θεοτόκου
at Constantinople (see Act. 169): afterwards it was Boistaller’s, and
is described by Montfaucon. John vii. 53—viii. 11 is at the end,
obelized, and not appointed for any day, as the names of Pelagia or
Theodora (see p. 74) are not in the menology.

87. Reg. 313, once Colbert’s (as were 88—91; 99—101)
[Σιν] fol.

88. Reg. 314 [xv] fol. Many verses are omitted, and the ar-
rangement of the lessons is a little unusual.

89. Reg. 316 [xtv] fol., on cotton paper, mut. fine.

90. Reg. 317 [written by Stephen, a reader, a.p. 1533. Ind. 6]
fol., chart.

91. Reg. 318 [x1] fol., a subscription, ὅσο. written in Cyprus by
the monk Leontius 1553 (Montfauc. Palaeo. G'raec. p. 89).

92. (Apost. 35). Reg. 324 [xu] 4°, on cotton paper, with frag-
ments of the Liturgy of St. Basil.

93. (Apost. 36). Reg. 326 [χιν] 4°, chart., with the Liturgies of
SS. Chrysostom and Basil.

94. (Apost. 29). Reg. 330 [xm] 4°, mut., with an Euchology
and part of a Church-service in a later hand [xv].

95. Reg. 374 [xiv] 4°, from Constantinople.

96. Reg. 115° [x11] 4°, chart., mut. initio et fine.

97. (= Evan. 324, Apost. 32) Reg. 376, only the εὐαγγέλια τῶν
πάθων (see p. 72).

98. Reg. 377, once Mazarin’s [x11] 4°, portions are palimpsest,
and the older writing seems to belong to an Evangelistarium.

99. Reg. 380 [xv] 4°, chart.

100. Reg. 381 [written in a.p. 1550 at Iconium by Michael
Maurice] 4°, chart.

101. Reg. 303 [x11] fol.

102. Ambrosian. 62, at Milan [written Sept. 1381 by Stephen, a

priest], fol., chart. (but two leaves of parchment at the beginning,
two at the end), bought at Taranto 1606, syn.?

103, Ambros. 67 [x1] 4°, pict.; bought 1606, “ Corneliani in
Salentinis.” See Apost, 46.

SERVICE-BOOKS OF THE GREEK CHURCH. 217

104. (Apost. 47). Ambros. 72 [xtr] 8°, mu. initio et fine: brought
from Calabria, 1607.

105. Ambros. 81 [xi] 8°, carefully written, but the first 19
leaves [xvi] chart.

106. Ambros. 91 [x11] 4°.

107. Venet. 548 [x1] fol. 108. Venet. 549 [xr] fol.

109. Venet. 550 [x1] 4°. 110. Venet. 551 [x1] fol.

+111. Mutinensis 27, at Modena [x] 4°.

112. (Apost. 48). Laurent. 2742, at Florence [xu] 8°, neat.

113. Laurent. vi. 2 [foll. 1—213, x11; the rest written by one
George xiv] fol. Prefixed are verses of Arsenius, Archbishop of
Monembasia (see Evan. 333), addressed to Clement VII. (1523—34).

114. Laurent. vi. 7 [x11] fol.

+115. Laurent. vi. 21 [xr] 4°, elegantly written.

+116. Laurent. vi. 31 [x] fol., elegant, musical notes rubro:
facsimile in Silvestre, Pal. Univ. No. 73.

117. Laurent. 244 [xm] fol., most beautifully written in golden
cursive letters, pict., once kept among the choicest κειμήλια of the
Grand Ducal Palace.

+118. Laurent., kept in a chest for special preservation [x1 or
x1] fol., most elegant. Codd. 117—8 were described by Canon
Angelo Bandini, 1787.

119. Vatic. 1155 [x11] fol. 120. Vat. 1256 [x11] fol.
121. Vat. 1157 [x11] fol., very splendid.
122. Vat. 1168 [dated August 1175, Indict. 12 (but the proper

Indiction is 8)] 4°, written by the monk Germanus for the monk
Theodoret.

+123. Vat. 1522 [x] 4°, pict, very correctly written, without
points.

124. Vat. 1988, Basil 27 [x11] 4°, mz. initio et fine.

125. Vat. 2017, Basil. 56 [x11] 4°, with a subscription dated
1346.

126. Vat. 2041, Basil. 80 [x11] fol., written by one George.

4127. Vat. 2063, Basil. 102 [1x] 4°, mwé. initio. The first two
leaves of the festival-lessons [x1v].

128. Vat. 2133 [xrv] 4°.
129. Alexandrino-Vat. (Queen Christina’s) 12 [xm] 45. Foll.
1—40 appear to have been written in France, and have an unusual

text: foll. 41—220 [xm] are by another hand, the other 71 leaves to
the end [xv].

+130. Vat. Ottobon. 2 [1x] fol., very beautiful.
131. Vat. Ottob. 175 [xrv] 4°, a fragment.

132. Vat. Ottob. 326 [xv] 4°, in silver letters. Procured at
Rome, Sept. 11, 1590, “a Francisco et Accida” of Messina, and
given to Cardinal Sirlet.

218 ON THE LECTIONARIES, OR MANUSCRIPT

133. (Apost. 39). Ottob. 416 [xv] 8°, chart.

134. Barberin. 15 [x1] fol., the first eight and last three leaves
being paper.

+135. Barber. 16, a palimpsest [v1. Scholz] 4°, is Tischendorf’s
barb™, and by him referred to the middle of the 7th century, which
is a little earlier date than has hitherto been assigned to Lectionaries
(see above, p. 63). He has given specimens of its readings in Jfonum.
sacr. ined. pp. 207 &e.

136. Barber. 16 [xu], the later writing of the palimpsest Cod.
135.

137. Vallicellian. D. 63, once Peter Polidore’s [xm] 4°, mud.
initio.

138. Neapol. 1. B. 14 [xv] fol., chart., given by Christopher
Palaeologus, May 7, 1584, to the Church of St Peter and Paul at
Naples.

139, Venet. 12 [x] fol. 140. Venet. 626 [x111] 4°, chart.

141. Venet. Nanian. 2 [x1] fol., from St Catherine's, on Sinai
(see p. 76).

142. Venet. Nanian. 16 [xrv] 8°, mué.

143. Once belonged to the monastery of St Michael, ‘prope
murianum,’ 49, Venice, fol. mwt., described by J. B. Mittarelli, 1779.

+144. Cod. Biblio. Malatestianae of Cesena xxvu. 4, now at
Rome [x or x11] fol., very splendid.

145. Cod. xxx. 2, of the same library [xu] fol.
146. Cambridge University Libr. Dd. v1. 23 [x1] 4°, neatly

written for a church at Constantinople.

(147. Mus. Brit. Harleian. 2970 [x1] 45.

148. Harl. 2994 [x1] 4°. 149. Harl. 5538 [x1v],

Codd. 147—9 should be erased; 147, 148 being in Latin, and
149 already described (p. 187) as a manuscript of the Gospels in
their proper order.

+*150. Harl. 5598 [written by Constantine, a priest, May 27,
995. Indict. 8] fol., is Scrivener’s H, and described in Cod. Augien-
sis, Introd. pp. xlvii—l: for an alphabet formed from it see Plate
um. No. 7. It was brought from Constantinople by Dr John Covell,
in 1677 (see above, p. 150), and by him shewn to Mill (Proleg. Λ΄. 7.
§ 1426); from Covell it seems to have been purchased (together with
his five other copies) by Harley, Earl of Oxford. It is a most splendid
specimen of the uncial class of Evangelistaria, and its text presents
many instructive variations. At the end are several lessons for
special occasions which are not often met with. Collated also by
(Bloomfield).

151. Harl. 5785 [xm] fol., a splendid copy, in large, bold, cursive
letters, with musical motes in red, and ornaments in gold. At the
end is a note, written at Rome in 1699, by L. A. Zacagni (see p. 88),
certifying that the volume was then more than 700 years old. The
date assigned above is more likely,

SERVICE-BOOKS OF THE GREEK CHURCH. 219

$152. Hari. 5787 [x] fol., the uncials leaning to the right, a fine
copy, with small uncial notes, well meriting collation. It begins
John xx. 20, and is mut. elsewhere.

153. Meermann. 117 [x1] 4°, justly suspected by Tischendorf to
be identical with Evan. 436, should be erased from the list: see
p. 158, note.

154. Monacensis 326, once at Mannheim [xi] fol., written
very small and neatly, containing the lessons from the season of
Lent (see p. 72) to the month of December in the menology (see
p. 74), which seems adapted to the Constantinopolitan use.

4155. Caesar-Vindobon. Nessel. 209, Lambec. 41 [x] 4°, a pa-
limpsest, over which is written a Commentary on St Matthew [xrv].

150. Vallicellian. D. 4. 1 [1] fol. described by Blanchini,
Evang. Quad. Pt. τ. p. 537; now missing.

157. Bodleian., Clarke 8 [x1] 4°, Saturday and Sunday lessons,
mut. initio et fine.

158. Library of the great Greek monastery at Jerusalem, No.
10 [σιν] fol.

159. “Biblioth. monasterii virginum τῆς μεγάλης παναγίας a 8.
Melana erect.” [xu] fol., very neat, (“non sec. vill. ut monachi
putant”) Scholz.

160. (Apost. 53) S. Saba 4, written there by one Anthony
[xiv] 8°.

161. 8. Saba 5[xv] 8°, chart. 162. 5. Saba 6 [xv] 16°, chart.

163. 5. Saba 13 [x1] 4°, chart., adapted (as also those that fol-
low) to the use of Palestine.

164. 5. Saba 14 [χιν] 4°. 165. 8. Saba 17 [xv] 4°, chart.
166. 8. Saba 21 [xu] fol. 167. 8S. Saba 22 [x1v] fol.
168. 5. Saba 23 [x11] fol. 169. S. Saba 24 [x11] fol.

170. 8. Saba 25 [xin] fol.

171. (Apost. 52) S. Saba (unnumbered) [written July 1059, in
the monastery of Θεοτόκος by Sergius, a monk of Olympus in Bithy-
nia] 8°.

+172. Library of St John’s monastery at Patmos [“1v” Scholz,
obviously a misprint] fol.

+173. Patmos [1x] 4°. +174. Patm. [x] 4°.

4175. Patm. [x] 4°. 176. Patm. [x1] 4°.

177. Patm. [xin] 4°.

178. Patm. [χιν] 4°, in the same Library, but not numbered.

+*179. (Apost. 55) Cod. Trevirensis, in the Cathedral Library
[x or x1] 4°, called St Simeon’s, and brought by him from Syria in
the 11th century, consists chiefly of lessons from the Old Testament.
It contains many itacisms and some unusual readings. Edited at
Tréves 1834 by B. M. Steininger in his Codex S. Simeonis exhibens
lect. eccl. gr. Docc ann. vetustate insigne.

220 ON THE LECTIONARIES, OR MANUSCRIPT

+180. Caesar-Vindob. corx [rx] 4°, palimpsest, with many ita-
cisms (Scholz, Endlicher). Readings are given by Scholz (N. T.
Vol. 1. pp. lv—lxiii).

181. (=Apoe. 26, Apost. 57). This is inserted in error: see
Ρ. 182, Wake No. 12. (In p. 182, 1. 20, read 181 for 187).

The next five are due to Tischendorf.

+* ven Venetian palimpsest fragments (edited Mon. sacr. ined.
Vol. 1. pp. 199, &e.), assigned to the end of the seventh century (see
Cod. 135, p. 218), containing Matth. viii. 32—ix. 1; 9—13; John
li. 15—22; ii. 22—26; vi. 16—26; or 27 verses.

tcarp™ at Carpentras [1x], examined by Tischendorf in 1843, in
consequence of Haenel’s assigning it to the 6th century. Extracts
are given in Anecd. sacr. et prof. pp. 151, &e.

ttisch Tischendorf. v, in the University Library at Leipsic
ΥΠῚ or 1x], a palimpsest, described Anecd. sacr. et prof. pp. 29, ἄο.
Tischendorf’s tubing is described under Cod. R, p. 114, and Ban-
dur” under Cod. O, p. 112]. .

+Petrop™ [1x] 69 leaves 4°, ill written, but with a remarkable
text; the date being tolerably fixed by Arabic matter decidedly more
modern, written 401 and 425 of the Hegira (i.e. about A.p. 1011
and 1035) respecting the birth and baptism of the two Holy infants.
There are but 10 lessons from St Matthew, and 19 from other parts
of the New Testament, enumerated Votit. Cod. Sinait. p. 54. This
copy has the two leaves on cotton paper, with writing by the first
hand, mentioned above, p. 21, note.

Petrop’’* a fragment of 93 leaves [x1 or xm] 4°. Notitia Cod.
Sinaitici, p. 63.

The following were collated by Scrivener :

+*P* Parham 18, the property of the Hon. R. Curzon, who
brought it from Caracalla in 1837 (see p. 182) [dated June 980, In-
dict. 8] fol., beautifully written at Ciscissa, in Cappadocia Prima; a
note dated 1049 is subjoined by a reviser, who perhaps made the
numerous changes in the text, and added two lessons in cursive
letters. A facsimile of P is given in Plate XII. No. 32. For this
codex, P 2 and z see Cod. Aug. Introd. pp. 1—lv.

+*P 2° Parham 1 [rx], three folio leaves from the monastery of
Docheirou on Athos, containing the 33 verses, Matth. i. 1—11;
11—22; vii. 7, 8; Mark ix. 41; xi. 22—26; Luke ix. 1—4.

+*x*" Arundel 547, in the British Museum (see p. 179) [1x] 4°,
mut. fine, followed by one leaf in a somewhat later hand, containing

John viii. 12—19; 21—23. Bentley’s previous collation is at Trinity
College (B. 17. 8).

*y** Burney 22, in the British Museum [dated a.p. 1319; see
Jacsimile, Plate XII. No. 36, and p. 38, note 1] fol., remarkable

SERVICE-BOOKS OF THE GREEK CHURCH. 221

for its wide departures from the received text, and for that reason
often cited by Tischendorf and Alford on the Gospels. Part of the
first leaf (John 1. 11—13) is on paper and later: x, y are described
in Collations of the Holy Gospels, Introd. pp. lix—txiii. Like Evst.
23 it once was D’Kon’s.

*" Christ’s College, Cambridge, F. 1. 8 [x1] fol., is much fuller
than most Lectionaries, and contains many minute variations and
interesting readings': it exhibits a subscription dated 1261, Indict.
4, much later than the codex, and a note stating that Francis Tay-
Jer, Preacher at Christ’s Church, Canterbury [the Cathedral], gave
it to the College in 1654. There are also 4 lessons from the pro-
phets, and 4 from St Paul. A facsimile is given Cod. Augiens.
Introd. p. lii.

The following Evangelistaria are quite uncollated.

Arundel. 536 [x11] 4°, mu. fine, with musical notes, as usual.

One at Middle Hill (see p. 181) [xm or xi].

+ Bodleian. Canonici Gr. 85 [rx] 4°, much mat. The uncials lean
a little to the left.

+ Tbid. 92 [x] large folio, very splendid, with gilt initials.

Ibid. 119 [xv] fol., chart., belonging in 1626 to Nicholas, a priest.

Ibid. 126, p. 252, a small fragment of an Evst.

In E. D. Clarke’s collection are four besides Evst. Cod. 157 of
Scholz.

Bodl. Clarke 45 [x11] large 4°, splendid but spoiled by damp,
with musical notes and bold initial letters rubro.

Ibid. 46 [x11] large 4°, inferior and rudely written: mut. initio
et fine.

Ibid. 47 [x11] 4°, with musical notes rubro: much like 45.

Ibid. 48 [xur] 4°, carelessly and ill written : mzé. initio.

The following are also in the Bodleian :

Cromwell 27 [x1] fol., from Athos 1727, once Irene’s. Men.

Miscell. 119, Auct. F. 6. 25 [a. Ὁ. 1067] 4°, once belonged to Con-
stantine Ducas βασιλεύς. It is carelessly written, and is preceded by

tOne uncial palimpsest leaf, containing parts of Rom. χίν.,
Hebr. i. This volume was bought of Payne and Foss, London, in
1820.

Miscell. 140, Rawl. Auct. G. 2 [x1] small 4°, a very beautiful
copy, one volume only out of a set of four. Both this codex and
Cromw. 27, Miscell. 119 have musical notes rubro.

+Baroce. 119 contains five uncial palimpsest leaves in two columns
(THE ORDINARY ARRANGEMENT OF EVANGELISTARIA) [X] used for the
binding.

Eight of the Wake manuscripts at Christ Church, Oxford (see p,
182) are Evangelistaria.

1 Thus z, with only two other Evangelistaria (6. 13) supports Cod. ἐξ and
Eusebius in the significant omission of υἱοῦ βαραχίου Matth. xxiii. 35.

222 ON THE LECTIONARIES, OR MANUSCRIPT

+tNo. 13 contains three uncial leaves [1x], the rest cursive [x1] in
a very large, bold, peculiar hand. Two palimpsest leaves at the end
have the older writing cursive. A table of lessons is in the hand-
writing of the venerated Dr Burton, late Regius Professor of Divinity.

No. 14 [xm] fol., with one leaf chart., and two leaves at the
beginning and end from the Old Testament, 3 (1) Kings xvii. 12 &e.

No. 15 [dated 1068] 4°, the first and last leaves being earlier.

No. 16 [xi] 4°, mut. initio et fine. There are musical notes
rubro: so also in Nos. 19, 23.

No. 17 [xu or xiv] 4°, mut. fine. Fifteen leaves are supplied
chart.

No. 18 [x11] fol., ill written. The first leaf contains the history
of St Varus and six martyrs. This is Walker’s E (see p. 184): his
H is

No. 19 [x1] 4°. Of this codex the 9th leaf is wanting.

No. 23 [x11] fol., an elegant copy.

In the Library of Sion College, in the city of London (see p. 187)
are three Evangelistaria, viz. Ari. 1. 1 [xu1]; Ari. 1. 4 and Ari. 1. 2
[xiv].

The following were seen by Mr Coxe in the East (see p. 185).

At Cairo: No. 18. Συναγωγὴ λέξεων ἐκ παλαιᾶς καὶ νέας.

At Jerusalem: No. 12 [x1 or x11] fol., which must be Scholz’s
Evst. 158.

At §. Saba Scholz saw twelve Evangelistaria (Codd. 160—171),
two of them containing the Apostolos (Codd. 160, 171); and four
Lectionaries of the Apostolos only (Codd. 49—51; 54). Coxe
observed but one Apostolos, Tower Libr. No. 52 [x1] 4° with musical
notes; and nine Evangelistaria. Some seen at 8. Saba by Scholz
have perhaps been since taken into Europe, the rather as we know
that Parham No. 20 (named below) came from that place.

Coxe’s list runs: No. 17 [xu] large 4°; No. 23 [x1] fol.; Nos.
24—6 [x1] fol.; No. 40 [xu] fol. with an Arabic version; Nos. 44,
55 τη large 4°; Tower Library No. 12 [x1] 4°.

At Patmos Scholz enumerates seven Evangelistaria (Codd. 172—
8), no Lectionary of the Apostolos: Coxe mentions only those four of
Scholz’s that are uncials (Codd. 172—5), viz. No. 4 [x1] 4°; No, 10
[x1] 4°; No. 22 [x1] fol.; No. 81 [vir] 4°.

At Milo, in private hands (see p. 186) was an Evst. [xr] fol., mad.

In the Patriarch of Jerusalem’s Library at Constantinople (see p.
180, note) an Evst. [x11] 4°, over early writing from Ptolemy.

Of E. de Muralt’s collated codices, described p. 178, five are
Evangelistaria (tNo. 1 apparently uncial), of which one contains also
a Praxapostolos.

Seidel’s codex at Frankfort-on-Oder (Act. 42, Paul. 48, Apoe. 13,
Apost. 56), also contains a lesson, Matth, xvii. 16—23.

SERVICE-BOOKS OF THE GREEK CHURCH. Papa

Apost. 15, and perhaps Apost. 24, also contain lessons from the
Gospels.

Lambeth 1187, 1188, 1189, all [xm], and 1193, mué., which Dr
Bloomfield refers to [1x], have been collated by him. He praises
Cod. 1188 as the fullest and most accurate either at Lambeth or the
British Museum.

In the British Museum Bloomfield professes to have examined 13
Lectionaries, of which those not before named appear to be Additional
536; 1575; 1577; 5153; 11840; 11841; 18212; 19460; 19993.
Of these 11840 [χη] 4°, mwé., with musical notes, beautifully written,
with some other matter; and 11841 [x1] fol., are from Bp. Butler’s
collection. All these he has not so much collated as inspected ;
reserving their fuller investigation, he is pleased to say, for Scrivener.
“Cupidum, pater optime, vires deficiunt.”

There are also uncollated Evangelistaria at Besangon; in the
Hunterian Museum at Glasgow, Q. 3, 35, 36 [x1]; one of great splen-
dour at Parham (No. 19), partly written in gold, and perhaps by
the Emperor Alexius Comnenus (1081—1118); and another at
Parham, No. 20 [x11] fol., from 8. Saba, which must be on Scholz’s
list (Codd. 160—171).

Deducting six duplicates &c., there remain 241 Evangelistaria.

Lectionaries containing the Apostolos or Praxapostolos.

11. ἘΞ Eats ὁ) 2. Brit. Mus. Cotton. Vespas. B. xvmt.
[x1] mué. initio et fine (Casley)*. The Museum Catalogue is wrong
in stating that it contains lessons from the Gospels.

3. Readings sent to Mill (Proleg. N. 7. § 1470) by John Batteley,
D.D., as taken from a codex, now missing, in Trinity Hall, Cam-
bridge. The extracts were from 1 Peter and John. Griesbach’s
Paul. 3 is Bodl. 5 (Evst. 19) cited by Mill only at Hebr. x. 22, 23.

4, Laurent., once at St Mark’s, Florence [x1] 4°.

*5. Gottingense 2 (in the University Library), once de Missy’s [xv]
fol., formerly of the monastery Castamonitum (?) on Athos (Mat-
thaei’s v). N.B. Paul. 5 of Griesbach (= Evst. 30).

6. (=Evan. 117) fragments examined by Griesbach (Foll. 183—
202).

ie EWSt. OF )- 8. (= Evst. 44).

9. (Evst. 84). 10. (Evst. 85).

11. Paris, Reg, 1045 [x11] 8°, well written in some monastery of
Palestine: with marginal notes in Arabic.

*12. (= Evst. 60).

+*13. Moscow, 8. Synod. 4 (Mt. b) [x] fol., important: it would
seem to be an uncial, once belonging to the Iberian monastery ;
renovated by Joakim, a monk, a.p. 1525.

1 Evst. = Evangelistarium.
2 In 1721. See Monk’s Life of Bentley, Vol. τι. p. 149.

224 ON THE LECTIONARIES, OR MANUSCRIPT

*14. §. Synod. 291 (Mt. e) [xm] 4°, well written, from the
monastery τοῦ ἐσφιγμένου on Athos.

*15. Typogr. Syn. 31 (Mt. tz) [dated 1116}.

*16. (= Evst. 52). ἘΠῚ (=Evst. 53).
*18. (=Evst. 54). *19, (=Evst. 55).
*20. (= Evst. 56).

Codd. 21—58 comprise Scholz’s additions to the list, of which
he describes none as collated entire or in the greater part. He seems,
however, to have collated Cod. 12.

21. (=Evst. 83).
22. Reg. 304 [x1] fol., brought from Constantinople: mud. fine.
23. Reg. 306 [x11] fol., mut. initio et fine.

24. Reg. 308 [χη] fol., contains a few lessons from the New
Testament, more from the Old: mut.

25. Reg. 319, once Colbert’s [x1] fol., ill-written, with a Latin
version over some portions of the text.

26. Reg. 320 [x11] fol. mut.

27. Reg. 321, once Colbert’s [x1] fol., mt., and illegible in
parts.

28. (= Evst. 26). 29. (=Evst. 94).
30. Reg. 373 [x11] 4°, mut. initio et fine: with some cotton-
paper leaves at the end.

31. (= Evst. 82). 32. (= Evan. 324, Evst. 97).
33. Reg. 382, once Colbert’s [x11] 4°.

34. Reg. 383, once Colbert's [xv] 4°, chart. In readings it is
much with Apost. 12, and the best copies.

35. (= Evst. 92). 36. (= Evst. 93).

37. (=Evan. 368, Act. 150, Paul. 230, Apoc. 84).

38. Vat. 1528 [xv] 4°, chart., written by the monk Eucholius.
39. (= Evst. 133).

40. Barberini 18 [x] 4°, a palimpsest (probably uncial, though
not so stated by Scholz), correctly written, but mostly illegible. The
later writing [x1v] contains lessons in the Old Testament, with a few
from the Catholic Epistles at the end.

41. Barb. 1 [x1] 4°, mut.
42. Vallicell. Ο 46 [xvi] 4°, chart., with other matter.

43. Richard. 2742 at Florence: seems to be the same as Cod.
48 below, and is not (as Scholz states) Evst. 139.

44, 45. Hunterian Mus. Glasgow, having been bought by Hunter
at Caesar de Missy's sale (Nos. 1633—4): 45 is dated a.p. 1199.

46. Ambros. 63 [xiv] 4°, bought (like Evst. 103) in 1606, “ Cor-
neliani in Iapygia.”

SERVICE-BOOKS OF THE GREEK CHURCH. Zan

47. (= Evst. 104). 48, (= Evst. 112).

49, 5. Saba 16 [xrv] 4°, chart.

50. 8S. Saba 18 [xv] 8°. 51. 8. Saba 26 [xrv] fol.
52. (= Evst. 171). 53. (= Evst. 160).

54, §. Saba (unnumbered) [xm] 4°.
t*55. (= Evst. 179).

56. (=Act. 42, Paul. 48, Apoc. 13 and Evst. —) contains only
1 Cor. ix. 2—12. 57. (=Apoc. 26, Wake 12, p. 182).

58. Wake 33, at Christ Church, Oxford [dated 1172] fol., 265
leaves, the ink quite gone in parts.

z* (see p. 221) contains four lessons from the Epistles; and de
Muralt’s Evst. 3”° (p. 178) is also a Praxapostolos.

Additional copies are:

t*tisch® * Bibl. Univers. Lipsiens. 6. F. (Tischend. v) [1x or x],
containing Heb. 1. 3—12, published Anecd. sacr. et prof. p. 73, ὅτο.

5
t* Petrop., one leaf of a double palimpsest, now at St Peters-
burg, the oldest writing [1x] containing Act. xiii. 10; 2 Cor. xi. 21
—23, cited by Tischendorf (λ΄. 7. Prol. p. cexxvi, 7th edition).

+ His new uncial Lectionary at St Petersburg (see p. 220) also
contains lessons from all parts of the New Testament; Scholz seems
to state the same of Evst. 161, “continet lect. et pericop.,” and
Coxe of Evst. Cairo 18,

At Lambeth, manuscripts 1190 [xi], 1191 [xm] 4°, mut. initio
et fine, 1194, 1195, 1196, all [xim] 4°, mut. are Lectionaries of the
Praxapostolos, which Dr 8. T. Bloomfield has collated.

We find Latin versions in 8 uncial and 10 cursive codices; an
Arabic version in Evan. 211; 450; Evst. 6; Coxe’s Evst. at St Saba,
No. 40; Latin and Arabic in Act. 96.

The total number of manuscripts we have recorded in the pre-
ceding catalogues are 34 uncial and 601 cursive of the Gospels; 10
uncial and 228° cursive of the Acts and Catholic Epistles; 14 uncial
and 282 cursive of St Paul; 4 uncial and 102 cursive of the Apoca-
lypse; 58 uncial and 183 cursive Evangelistaria; and 7 uncial, 65
cursive Lectionaries of the Praxapostolos. In calculating this total
of 127 uncials and 1461 cursives we have deducted 66 duplicates,
and must bear in mind that a few of the codices, whose present
locality is unknown, may have reappeared under other heads.

‘O μὲν θερισμὸς πολύς, οἱ δὲ ἐργάται ὀλίγοι.

1 In spite of the utmost care to detect duplicates, I overlooked at p. 193 what
1 had observed at p. 130, that Scholz’s Act. 102, Paul 117 is Tischendorf’s wncial
K of all the Epistles. Hence it becomes necessary to make the requisite changes
in the totals at pp. 200, 207.

CHAPTER III.

ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES.

i? ΑΕ Ν facts stated in the preceding chapter have led us

to believe that no extant manuscript of the Greek Tes-
tament yet discovered is older than the fourth century, and
that those written as early as the sixth century are both few
in number, and (with one notable exception) contain but
portions, for the most part very small portions, of the sacred
volume. When to these considerations we add the well-known
circumstance that the most ancient codices vary widely and
perpetually from the commonly received text and from each
other, it becomes desirable for us to obtain, if possible, some
evidence as to the character of those copies of the New Tes-
tament which were used by the primitive Christians in times
anterior to the date of the most venerable now preserved.
Such sources of information, though of a more indirect and
precarious kind than manuscripts of the original can supply,
are open to us in the versions of Holy Scripture, made at
the remotest period in the history of the Church, for the use
of believers whose native tongue was not Greek. ‘Transla-
tions, certainly of the New and probably of the Old Testa-
ment, were executed not later than the second century in the
Syriac and Latin Tongues, and, so far as their present state
enables us to judge of the documents from which they were
rendered, they represent to us a modification of the inspired
text which existed within a century of the death of the Apo-
stles. Even as the case stands, and although the testimony
of versions is peculiarly liable to doubt and error, the Pe-
shito Syriac and Old Latin translations of the Greek Testa-

ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS, &c. 227

ment stand with a few of the most ancient manuscripts of the
original in the very first rank as authorities and aids for the
critical revision of the text.

In a class apart from and next below the Peshito Syriac
and Old Latin we may group together the Curetonian Syriac,
the Egyptian, the Latin Vulgate, the Gothic, the Armenian
and Aithiopic versions, which we name in what seems to be
their order in respect to value. Of these the Curetonian will be
discussed more fitly hereafter (pp. 2836—241); the Egyptian
may have been formed, partly in the third, principally in the
fourth century; the Latin Vulgate and the Gothic belong to
the fourth, the Armenian and possibly the /Xthiopic to the
fifth. The Philoxenian Syriac, although not brought into its
present condition before the beginning of the seventh century,
would appear, for reasons that will be detailed hereafter, to
hold a place in this class not much lower than the Latin
Vulgate.

The third rank must be assigned to the several minor
Syriac (so far as their character has been ascertained), to the
Georgian and Slavonic, some Arabic, and one of the Persic
versions: these are either too recent or uncertain in date, or
their text too mixed and corrupt, to merit particular attention.
The other Persic (and perhaps one Arabic) version being de-
rived from the Peshito Syriac, and the Anglo-Saxon from the
Latin Vulgate, can be applied only to the correction of their
respective primary translations.

2. The weight and consideration due to versions of Scrip-
‘ture, considered as materials for critical use, depend but little
on their merits as competent representations of the original.
A very wretched translation, such as the Philoxenian Syriac,
may happen to have high critical value; while an excellent
one, like our English Bible, shall possess just none at all.
And, in general, the testimony of versions as witnesses to
the state of the text is rendered much less considerable than
that of manuscripts of the same date, by defects which, though
they cleave to some of them far more than to others, are too
inherent in their very nature to be absolutely eliminated from
any. These defects are so obvious as to need no more than
a bare statement, and render a various reading, supported by
versions alone, of very slight consideration.

15—2

228 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE

(1). It may be found as difficult to arrive at the primitive
text of a version, as of the Greek original itself: the varia-
tions in its different copies are often quite as considerable,
and suspicions of subsequent correction, whether from the
Greek or from some other version, are as plausible to raise
and as hard to refute. This is preeminently the case in re-
gard to the Latin version, especially in its older form; but
the Peshito Syriac, the Armenian, the Georgian and almost
every other have been brought into discredit, on grounds
more or less reasonable, by those whose purpose it has served
to disparage their importance.

(2). Although several of the ancient versions, and parti-
cularly the Latin, are rendered more closely to the original
than would be thought necessary or indeed tolerable in
modern times, yet it is often by no means easy to ascer-
tain the precise Greek words which the translator had in his
copy. While versions are always of weight in determining
the authenticity of sentences or clauses inserted or omitted
by Greek manuscripts!, and in some instances may be em-
ployed even for arranging the order of words, yet every lan-
guage differs so widely in spirit from every other, and the
genius of one version is so much at variance with that of
others, that too great caution cannot be used in applying
this kind of testimony to the criticism of the Greek. The
Aramzan idiom, for example, delights in a graceful redun-
dancy of pronouns, which sometimes affects the style of the
Greek Testament itself (e.g. Matth. viii. 1; 5): so that the
Syriac should have no influence in deciding a point of this
kind, as the translator would naturally follow the usage of
his own language, rather than regard the precise wording of
his original.

(3). Hence it follows that no one can form a trustworthy
judgment respecting the evidence afforded by any version,
who is not master of the language in which it is written,
A past generation of critics contented themselves with using
Latin versions of the Egyptian, Aithiopic, &e., to their own
and their readers’ cost. The insertion or absence of whole

1 This use of versions was seen by Jerome (Praefatio ad Damasum) ‘‘ Cum

multarum gentium linguis scriptura ante translata, doceat falsa esse quae addita
sunt.” It is even now the principal service they can perform for the critic.

NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 229

clauses, indeed, are patent facts which cannot be mistaken, but
beyond such matters the unskilled enquirer ought not to venture.
The immediate result of this restriction may be to confine the
student to the full use of the Syriac and Latin versions; a few
Biblical scholars, as Professor Ellicott, have made some pro-
gress in the ancient Egyptian ; the rest of us must remain satis-
fied with a confession of ignorance, or apply our best diligence
to remedy it.

From this rapid glance over the whole subject of versions,
we pass on to consider them severally in detail; not aiming
at a full literary history of any of them, which would be un-
suitable to our limits and present design, but rather seeking to
put the learner in possession of materials for forming an inde-
pendent estimate of their relative value, and of the internal
character of the chief among them.

3. Syriac Versions. (1). The Peshito.

The Aramzan or Syriac (preserved to this day as their sacred
tongue by several Eastern Churches), is an important branch
of the great Shemitic family of languages, which as early as
Jacob’s age existed distinct from the Hebrew (Gen. xxxi. 47).
In its present state, it was spoken in the north of Syria and in
Upper Mesopotamia, the native region of the patriarch Abra-
ham, about Edessa. It is a more copious, flexible and ele-
gant language than Hebrew (which ceased to be vernacular at
the Babylonish captivity) had ever the means of becoming,
and is so intimately akin to the Chaldee as spoken at Baby-
lon, and subsequently throughout Palestine, that the latter was
popularly known by its name (2 Kings xviii. 26; Isai. xxxvi. 11;
Dan. ii. 4). As the Gospel took firm root at Antioch within
a few years after the Lord’s Ascension (Act. xi. 19—27; xiii.
1, &.), we might deem it probable that its tidings soon spread
from the Greek capital into the native interior, even though we
utterly rejected the venerable tradition of Thaddaeus’ mission
to Abgarus, toparch of Edessa, as well as the fable of that
monarch’s intercourse with Christ while yet on earth (Kuse-
bius, Hecl. Hist. τ. 13.; 11.1). At all events we are sure that
Christianity flourished in these regions at a very early period;
it is even possible that the Syriac Scriptures were seen by

230 . ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE

Hegisippus in the second century (Euseb. Eccl. Hist. tv. 22) ;
they were familiarly used and claimed as his national version by
Ephraem of Edessa (see p. 94) in the fourth. Thus the uni-
versal belief of later ages, and the very nature of the case, seem
to render it unquestionable, that the Syrian Church was pos-
sessed of a translation, both of the Old and New Testament,
which it used habitually, and, for public worship exclusively,
from the second century of our era downwards: as early as
A.D. 170 ὁ Σύρος is cited by Melito on Genes. xxii. 13 (Mill,
Proleg. § 1239). And the sad history of that distracted
Church can leave no room to doubt what that version was.
In the middle of the fifth century, the third and fourth general
Councils at Ephesus and Chalcedon proved the immediate occa-
sions of dividing the Syrian Christians into three, and eventu-
ally into yet more, hostile communions. ‘These grievous divi-
sions have now subsisted for fourteen hundred years, and though
the bitterness of controversy has abated, the estrangement of
the rival Churches is as complete and hopeless as ever’. Yet
the same translation of Holy Scripture is read alike in the
public assemblies of the Nestorians among the fastnesses of
Coordistan, of the Monophysites who are scattered over the
plains of Syria, of the Christians of St Thomas along the coast
of Malabar, and of the Maronites on the mountain-terraces of
Lebanon. Even though these last acknowledged the supremacy
of Rome in the twelfth century, and certain Nestorians of
Chaldwxa in the eighteenth, both societies claimed at the time,
and enjoy to this day, the free use of their Syriac translation of
Holy Scripture. Manuscripts, too, obtained from each of these
rival communions, have flowed from time to time into the
libraries of the West, yet they all exhibit a text in every im-
portant respect the same; all are without the Apocalypse and
four of the Catholic Epistles, which latter we know to have been
wanting in the Syriac in the sixth century (Cosmas Indico-

1 All modern accounts of the unorthodox sects of the East confirm Walton’s
beautiful language two hundred years ago: ‘‘Etsi verd, olim in hwreses miserd
prolapsi, se a reliquis Ecclesim Catholic membris separarint, unde justo Dei
judicio sub Infidelium jugo oppressi serviunt, qui ipsis dominantur, ex continuis
tamen calamitatibus edocti et sapientiores redditi (est enim Schola Crucis Schola
Lucis) tandem eorum misertus Misericordiarum Pater eos ad rectam sanamque
mentem, rejectis antiquis erroribus, reduxit” (Walt. Prolegomena, Wrangham, Tom.
II. p. 500).

NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 991

pleustes apud Montfaucon, Collectio Nova Patrum et Script.
Graec. Tom. τι. p. 292), a defect, we may observe in passing,
which alone is no slight proof of the high antiquity of the ver-
sion that omits them; all correspond with whatever we know
from other sources of that translation which, in contrast with
one more recent, was termed “old” ( (0,0 ) by Thomas of

Harkel Α.Ρ. 616, and “ Peshito”’ (18...) the ‘ Simple”

by the great Monophysite doctor, Gregory Bar-Hebraeus [1226-
86]. Literary history can hardly afford a more powerful case
than has been established for the identity of the version of the
Syriac now called the Peshito with that used by the Eastern
Church, long before the great schism had its beginning in the
native land of the blessed Gospel.

The first printed edition of this most venerable monument
of the Christian faith was published in quarto at Vienna in the
year 1555 (some copies are re-dated 1562), at the expense of the
Emperor Ferdinand I., on the recommendation and with the
active aid of his Chancellor, Albert Widmanstadt, an accom-
plished person, whose travelling name in Italy was John Lucre-
tius. It was undertaken at the instance of Moses of Mardin,
legate from the Monophysite Patriarch Ignatius to Pope
Julius III. (1550—55), who seems to have brought with him
a manuscript of the Jacobite family, although written at Mosul,
for publication in the West: Widmanstadt contributed a second
manuscript of his own, though it does not appear whether
either or both contained the whole New Testament. This
beautiful book, the different portions of which have separate
dedications, was edited by Widmanstadt, by Moses, and by
W. Postell jointly, in an elegant type of the modern Syriac
character, the vowel and diacritic points, especially the linea
occultans, being frequently dropped, with subscriptions and titles
indicating the Jacobite Church lessons in the older, or Estran-
gelo, letter. It omits, as was natural and right, those books
which the Peshito does not contain: viz. the second Epistle
of Peter, the second and third of John, that of Jude and the
Apocalypse, together with the disputed passage John vii. 53—
viii. 11, and the doubtful, or more than doubtful clauses in Matt.
xxv. 35; Acts vill. 37; xv. 34; 1 John v. ἡ: This editio
princeps of the Peshito New Testament, though now beconte

232 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE

very scarce (one half of its thousand copies having been sent
into Syria), is held in high and deserved repute, as its text is
apparently based on manuscript authority alone.

Immanuel Tremellius, a converted Jew and Professor of
Divinity at Heidelberg, published the second edition in folio in
1569, containing the New Testament in Hebrew type, with a
literal Latin version, accompanied by the Greek text and Beza’s
translation of it, with a Chaldee and Syriac grammar annexed.
Tremellius used several manuscripts, especially one at Heidel-
berg, and made from them and his own conjecture many
changes, which were not always improvements, in the text ;
besides admitting some grammatical forms which are Chaldee
rather than Syriac. His Latin version has been used as their
basis by later editors, down to the time of Schaaf. ‘T'remellius’
and Beza’s Latin versions were reprinted together, without
their respective originals, in 1592. Subsequent editions of the
Peshito New Testament were those of the folio Antwerp or
Royal Spanish Polyglott of Plantin (1569—72), in Hebrew and
Syriac type, revised from a copy dated A.D. 1188, which Postell
had brought from the East: two other editions of Plantin in
Hebrew type without points (1574, 8°, 1575, 24°), the second
containing various readings extracted by Francis Rapheleng from
a Cologne manuscript for his own reprints of 1575 and subse-
quently of 1583: the smaller Paris edition, also in unpointed
Hebrew letters, 4°, 1584, by Guy Le Fevre, who prepared the
Syriac portion of the Antwerp Polyglott: that of Elias Hutter,
in two folio volumes (Nuremberg 1599—1600), in Hebrew
characters ; this editor ventured to supply in Syriac of his own
making, the single passages wanting in the editio princeps, and
the spurious Epistle to the Laodiceans: Martin Trost’s edition
(Anhalt-Céthen, 1621, 4°,) in Syriac characters, with vowel-
points and a list of various readings, is much superior to
Hutter’s.

The magnificent Paris Polyglott (fol. 1645) is the first which
gives us the Old Testament portion of the Peshito, though in
an incomplete state. The Maronite Gabriel Sionita, who super-
intended this portion of the Polyglott, made several changes
in the system of vowel punctuation, possibly from analogy
rather than from manuscript authority, but certainly for the
better. His judgment however was much at fault when he in-

NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 233

serted as integral portions of the Peshito the version of the four
missing Catholic Epistles, which had been published in 1630
by our illustrious oriental scholar, Edward Pococke, from some
manuscript in the Bodleian: and another of the Apocalypse,
edited at Leyden in 1627 by Louis de Dieu, from an unpromis-
ing and recent manuscript, lately examined by Tregelles, in the
University Library there (Scaliger MS. 18). Of the two, the
version of the Catholic Epistles seems decidedly the older, and
both bear much resemblance to the later Syriac or Philoxenian
translation, but neither have the smallest claim to be regarded
as portions of the Peshito, to which, however, they have unhap-
pily been appended ever since.

Bp. Walton’s, or the London Polyglott (fol. 1654—7), af-
fords us little more than a reprint of Sionita’s Syriac text, with
Trost’s various readings appended, but interpolates the text yet
further by inserting John vii. 53—vii. 11 from a manuscript
(now lost) of Archbishop Ussher, by whom it had been sent
to De Dieu before 1631. As this passage is not in the true
Philoxenian, we are left to conjecture as to its real date and
character, only that De Dieu assures us that the Ussher ma-
nuscript contained the whole New Testament, which no copy
of the Peshito or other Syriac version yet known has been
found to do.

Giles Gutbier published at Hamburg (8°, 1664) an edition
containing all the interpolated matter, and 4 Joh. v. 7 in addi-
tion, from Tremellius’ own version, which he inserted in his
margin. Gutbier used two manuscripts, by one of which,
belonging to Constantine L’Empereur, he corrected Sionita’s
system of punctuation. A glossary, notes and various readings
are annexed. The Salzburg edition 12°, 1684, seems a mere
reprint of Plantin’s; nor does that published at Rome in 1703
for the use of the Maronites, though grounded upon manuscript
authority, appear to have much critical value.

A collation of the various readings in all the preceding
editions, excepting those of 1684 and 1703, 15 affixed to the
Syriac N.'T. of J. Leusden and Ch. Schaaf (4°, Leyden, 1709:
with a new title-page 1717). It extends over one hundred pages,
and, though most of the changes are very insignificant, is
tolerably accurate and of considerable value. This edition con-
tains a revised Latin version, and is usually accompanied with

2954 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE

an admirable Syriac Lexicon (it might almost be called a Con-
cordance) of the Peshito New Testament. Its worth, however,
is considerably lessened by a fancy of Leusden for pointing the
vowels according to the rules of Chaldee rather than of Syriac
grammar: after his death, indeed, and from Luke xviii. 27
onwards, this grave mistake was corrected by Schaaf. Of
modern editions the most convenient, or certainly the most
accessible to English students, are the N. T. Professor Lee
prepared in 1816 for the British and Foreign Bible Society
with the Eastern Church-lessons noted in Syriac, and that of
Greenfield, both in Bagster’s Polyglott of 1828, and in a small
form, which aims at representing Widmanstadt’s text distinct
from the subsequent additions derived from other sources. Lee’s
edition was grounded on a collation of three fresh manuscripts,
besides the application of other matter previously available to
the revision of the text; but the materials on which he founded
his conclusions have never been printed, although their learned
collector once intended to do so, and many years afterwards
consented to lend them to Scrivener for that purpose; a promise
which death ultimately hindered him from redeeming. An
edition printed in 1829 by the British and Foreign Bible
Society for the Nestorian Christians was based on a single
manuscript brought from Mosul by Dr Wolff.

From the foregoing statement it will plainly appear that
the Peshito Syriac has not yet received that critical care on the
part of editors that its antiquity and importance so urgently
demand; such a work in fact is one of the few great tasks yet
open to the enterprise of scholars. Nor have we any cause
to regret the scantiness of the means at our disposal for its
accomplishment. In the Vatican, “ditissimo illo omnium dis-
ciplinarum promptuario,”’ as Wiseman calls it in his honest
pride (Zorae Syriacae, p. 151), the master-hand of the Dane
Adler [1755—1805] has been engaged on several codices of
the Peshito’, one dated as early as A.D. 548; many more
must linger unexamined in the recesses of continental libraries,
especially at Paris and Florence. Our own Museum, even be-
fore it was enriched from the monasteries of Egypt, possessed
several copies of venerable age, one of which has been collated

1 Novi Testamenti Versiones Syriacae, Simplex, Philoxeniana, et Hierosoly-
mitana...a J. (ὦ, Ch. Adler, Hafniae, 1789, 4to.

NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 235

by Tregelles and others (Rich. 71571); and if “the general result
is, that though some materials are certainly thus afforded for
the critical revision of the text, by far the greater part of the
changes relate to grammatical forms, and particulars of that
kind” (Tregelles’ Horne, p. 264), yet here we have access to
the kind of text current among the Nestorians in the eighth
century, long before their copies could have been corrupted by
intercourse with the Latins. At Cambridge too are deposited
two manuscripts, both used by Lee, one of them containing the
Old Testament also (Univ. Libr. Ff. 2.15), thought by some
to be written about the seventh century, and brought from the
Malabar coast in 1806 by Buchanan: in the Bodleian αὐ least
the two whose readings were published by Jones in 1805.
With such full means of information within our reach it will
not be to our credit if a good critical edition of the Peshito be
much longer unattempted.

It is not easy to determine why the name of Peshito “the
simple’ should have been given to the oldest Syriac version of
Scripture to distinguish it from others that were subsequently
made. The term would seem to signify “ faithful” rather than
“literal ;” for in comparison with the Philoxenian it is the very
reverse of a close rendering of the original. We shall presently
submit to the reader a few extracts from it, contrasted with the
same passages in other Syriac versions (below, pp. 249—251) ; for
the present we can but assent to the ripe judgment of Michaelis,
who after thirty years’ study of its contents, declared that he
could consult no translation with so much confidence in cases
of difficulty and doubt. In regard to the. criticism of the text,
its connexion with Cod. D and the Latin versions has been
often dwelt upon. For its style, composed in the purest dialect
of a perspicuous and elegant, if not a very copious language,
no version can well be more exempt from the besetting faults
of translators, constraint and stiffness of expression: yet while

1 Of this copy the late Professor Rosen, in the Preface to the Catalogue of
Syriac MSS. in the British Museum, 1838, thus writes: ‘“‘Inter quos ante alios
omnes memorabile est N. T. exemplar Nestorianum, liber et antiquitate sud,
quum saeculo octavo scriptus est, et summa scripturae diligentiaé atque elegantia,
inter omnia quotquot nobis innotuerunt Syriaca N. ΤᾺ exemplaria, eximia laude
dignus. Etenim remotioris etiam aetatis codices Syriacos extare comperimus qui-
dem; sed de nullo nos vel audire vel legere meminimus, qui omnes quos Nestoriani
agnoscunt N, T’, libros amplecteretur.”

236 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE

remarkable for its ease and freedom, it very seldom becomes
loose or paraphrastic. Though a word or two may occasion-
ally be inserted to unravel some involved construction (Act. x.
38; Eph. iii. 1; Col. i. 14; 1 Johni. 1), or to elucidate what
else might be obscure (Luke ix. 34; xvi.8; Actsi. 19; 11.14;
24; v.4; xii. 15; Rom. xu. 16; xiv. 1, &e.); yet seldom
would its liberty in this particular offend any but the most
servile adherent to the letter of the Greek. The Peshito has
well been called “the Queen of versions” of Holy Writ, for it
is at once the oldest and one of the best of all those, whereby
God’s Providence has blessed and edified the Church.

(2). The Curetonian Syriac.

Dean Alford is bold enough to call this fragment “ perhaps
the earliest and most important of all the versions” (N. T.
Proleg. p. 114); and though this estimate may be deemed a
little unreasonable, we cannot doubt that its discovery is the
most valuable of the many services rendered to sacred and pro-
fane literature by Canon Cureton, whose energy and practised
sagacity, displayed in his researches among Syriac manuscripts,
have been aided by that good fortune which does not always
fail those who deserve her smile. ‘The volume which contained
these portions of the Gospels (and no other copy of the trans-
lation has yet been found) had been brought by Archdeacon
Tattam in 1842 from the same monastery as the palimpsest
Cod. R described in the last chapter (p. 115). The eighty-
two leaves and a half on which what remains of the version
is written (although two of them did not reach England till
1847) were picked out by Dr Cureton, then one of the officers
in the Manuscript department of the British Museum, from a
mass of other matter which had been bound up with them by
unlearned possessors, and comprise the Additional MS. 14, 451*
of the library they adorn, They are in quarto, with two
columns on a page, in a bold hand and Kstrangelo or old
Syriac character, on vellum originally very white, the single
points for stops, some titles, &c. being in red ink; and there
are no marks of Church-lessons by the first hand, which Cure-
ton (a most competent judge) assigns to the middle of the fifth
century. The fragments contain Matth. 1. l—vui. 22; x. 32—

NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. O37

xxill. 25; Mark xvi. 17—20; John i. 1—42; i. 6—vii. 37;
xiv. 10—12; 16—18; 19—23; 26—29; Luke i. 48—iii. 16;
vil. 833—xv. 21; xvii. 24—xxiv. 44, or 1786 verses, so ar-
ranged that St Mark’s Gospel is immediately followed by St
John’s (see p. 62). The Syriac text was printed in fine Estran-
gelo type in 1848, and freely imparted to such scholars as
might need its help; it was not till 1858 that the work was
published*, with a very literal translation into rather bald
English (see above, p. 8), a beautiful and exact fac-simile by
Mrs Cureton, and a Preface (pp. xev), full of interesting or
startling matter, which has been criticised in no friendly tone.
Indeed, the difficult but unavoidable investigation into the rela-
tion his new version bears to the Peshito has been further
complicated by Dr Cureton’s persuasion that he had discovered
in these Syriac fragments a text of St Matthew’s Gospel that
“to a great extent, has retained the identical terms and ex-
pressions which the Apostle himself employed; and that we
have here, in our Lord’s discourses, to a great extent the very
same words as the Divine Author of our holy religion himself
uttered in proclaiming the glad tidings of salvation in the
Hebrew dialect...’’(p. xciii): that here in fact we have to a
great extent the original of that Hebrew Gospel of St Matthew
of which the canonical Greek Gospel is but a translation. It
is beside our present purpose to examine in detail the arguments
of Dr Cureton on this head’, and it would be the less neces-
sary in any case, since they seem to have convinced no one save

1 Remains of a very antient recension of the four Gospels in Syriac, hitherto
unknown in Europe, discovered, edited, and translated by William Cureton, D.D.
...Canon of Westminster, 4to, London, 1858.

2 Less able writers than Dr Cureton have made out a strong, though not
I think a convincing case, for the Hebrew origin of St Matthew’s Gospel, and thu
far his argument is plausible enough. To demonstrate that the version he has
discovered is based upon that Hebrew original, at least so far as to be a modifica-
tion of it and not a translation from the Greek, he has but a single plea that will
bear examination, viz. that out of the many readings of the Hebrew or Nazarene
Gospel with which we are acquainted (the reader will see three, two of them pre-
viously unknown, above p. 125), his manuscript agrees with it in the one parti-
cular of inserting the three kings, ch. i. 8, though even here the number of fourteen
generations retained in v, 17 shews them to be an interpolation. Such cases as

Juda, ch. ii. 1; Ramtha, v. 18; 2 for ὅτι or the relative, ch. xiii. 16, can prove

nothing, as they are common to the Curetonian with the Peshito, from which
version they may very well be derived.

238 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE

himself: but the place his version occupies with reference to the
Peshito is a question that cannot be quite passed over, even in
an elementary treatise like the present.

Any one who shall compare the verses we have cited from
them in parallel columns (pp. 249, 251) will readily admit that
the two translations have a common origin, whatever that may
be; many other passages, though not perhaps of equal length,
might be named where the resemblance is closer still; where
for twenty words together the Peshito and the Curetonian shall
be positively identical, although the Syriac idiom would admit
other words and another order just as naturally as that actually
employed. Nor will this conclusion be shaken by the not less
manifest fact that, throughout many passages the diversity is so
great that no one, with those places alone before him, would
be led to suspect any connection between the two versions; for
resemblances in such a case furnish a positive proof, not to be
weakened by the mere negative presumption supplied by diver-
gencies. Add to this the consideration that the Greek manu-
scripts from which either version was made or corrected (as the
case may prove) were materially different in their character ;
the Peshito for the most part favouring Cod. A, the Curetonian
taking part with Cod. D, or the Old Latin, or often standing
quite alone, unsupported by any critical authority whatever ; and
the reader is then in possession of the whole case, from whose
perplexities we have to unravel the decision, which of these two
recensions best exhibits the text of the Holy Gospels, as received
from the second century downwards by the Syrian Church.

(1). Now it is obvious to remark, in the first place, that
the Peshito has the advantage of possession, and that too of
fourteen centuries standing. The mere fact that the Syriac
manuscripts of the rival sects, whether modern or as old as
the seventh century, agree with each other and with the cita-
tions from Ephraem in all important points, seems to bring the
Peshito text, in the same state as we have it at present, up to
the fourth century of our wra. Of this version, again, there are
many codices, of different ages and widely diffused ; of the Cure-
tonian but one, of the fifth century, indeed, so far as the verdict
of a most accomplished judge can determine so delicate a ques-
tion; yet surely not to be much preferred, in respect to anti-
quity, to Adler’s copy of the Peshito in the Vatican, dated

NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 239

A.D. 548. From the Peshito, as the authorised version of the
Oriental Church, there are many quotations in Syriac books
from Ephraem downwards; can Dr Cureton, the profoundest
Syriac scholar in England, allege any second citation from the
Gospels by a native writer which corresponds with the newly
discovered version better than with the old, and which may
serve to keep in countenance the statement of Dionysius Bar-
salibi, late in the twelfth century, “there is found occasion-
ally a Syriac copy made out of the Hebrew, which inserts the
three kings in the genealogy” (Matth. i. 8)*? With every
wish to give to this respectable’old writer, and to others who
bear testimony to the same reading, the consideration that is
fairly their due, we can hardly fail to see that the weight of
evidence enormously preponderates in the opposite scale.

(2). Dr Cureton will probably admit that in external proof
his theory is not strong, but will deem the internal character of
the version powerfully in favour of his view. And _ herein,
perhaps, he has been a little helped (if he needed or cared
for such aid) by those hostile critics who have thought to anni-
hilate the critical influence of his version, when they had
shewn it to be, as a translation, loose, careless, paraphrastic, full
of interpolations, for which no authority, or only very bad
authority, can be found elsewhere. Not that we quite assent
to Tregelles’ quaint remark, “unfortunately it has been criti-
cised by those who do not understand the subject, and who have
actually regarded its merits as defects’ (Introd. Notice to
Part 11. of N. T. p. iii); negligent or licentious renderings
(and the Curetonian Syriac is pretty full of them) cannot but
lessen a version’s usefulness as an instrument of criticism, by
increasing our difficulty of reproducing the precise words of the
original which the translator had before him; but in another
point of view these very faults may still form the main strength
of Dr Cureton’s case. It is, no doubt, a grave suggestion, that
the more polished, accurate, faithful and grammatical of the two
versions—and the Peshito richly deserves all this praise—is
more likely to have been produced by a careful and gradual
revision of one much its inferior in these respects, than the
worse to have originated in the mere corruption of the better

1 Cureton, Preface, pp. xi. xciii.

940 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE

(Cureton, Pref. p. \xxxi). A priori, we readily confess that
probability inclines this way; but it is a probability which
needs the confirmation of facts, and by adverse facts may be
utterly set aside. If, for instance, he had demonstrated at
length, instead of hinting incidentally and almost by chance,
that ‘“‘upon the comparison of several of the oldest copies now
in the British Museum of that very text of the Gospels which
has been generally received as the Peshito, the more antient the
manuscripts be, the more nearly do they correspond with the
text of these Syriac fragments” (Pref. 1xxiii) in respect to dialec-
tical peculiarity ; more especially if he could have extended his
statement to matters more important than bare language or
grammar, as he very possibly might have done!; it could not be
said of Dr Cureton, as now it must be said, that on the most
serious plea in his whole argument, he has allowed judgment to
pass against him by default.

Meanwhile we ought not to dissemble our conviction that
many passages in which the Peshito differs from the Cureto-
nian version bear strong traces of being corruptions on the part
of the latter of readings already correctly given by the former ;
and thus form a class of facts very adverse to the higher
authority claimed for the newly discovered translation. Such,
for example, is Luke xxiv. 32, where all existing manuscripts
(except Cod. D, which has a different reading altogether, xexa--
λυμμένη) have ἡ καρδία ἡμῶν καιομένη ἦν, “our heart was
burning within us,” which the Peshito rightly translates by
Joon ce Bas , while the Curetonian, by the slight
change of the Estrangelo dolath Ἵ into rish =, for 4.
“burning,” presents us with ,»o, “heavy;” a variation
supported only by those precarious allies the Thebaic and
(apparently) the Armenian versions. Had the passage occurred
in St Matthew’s Gospel, Dr Cureton would of course have

1 Dr P. N. Land, of the National Reformed Communion in Holland, who
reviewed Cureton’s work in the Journal of Sacred Literature, October, 1858, very
pertinently states that in the Edessene codex of A.D. 548 in the Vatican, as col-
lated by Adler in his Versiones Syriacae, “thirty-nine variations from Schaaf’s
Péshitt6 occur within the first seven chapters; and among these thirty-nine,
twenty-one are literally, and of some others traces are found in Dr C.’s text”
(p. 153). This information is given ex abundanti benevolentid, for Land calls the
way Cureton’s book is got up “unprincipled” (p. 160), which I trust is Anglo-
Dutch for nothing worse than ¢d/logical,

NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 241

thrown the error upon the Greek translator, as having misread
his Aramaic original; as the matter stands, it is difficult to
avoid the conclusion that in this and not a few other passages
the careless transcriber of the Curetonian mistook or corrupted
the Peshito, rather than that the Peshito amended the defects,
real or supposed, of the other. But on this head we can dwell
no longer.

On the whole, then, fully admitting the critical value of this
newly-discovered document, and feeling much perplexed when
_ we try to account for its origin, we yet see no reason whatever
to doubt its decided inferiority in every respect to the primitive
version still read throughout the Churches of the East.

(3). Zhe Philoxenian Syriac,

Of the history of the Philoxenian Syriac version, which
embraces the whole New Testament except the Apocalypse,
We possess rather exact information, though some points
‘of difficulty may still remain unsolved. Moses of Aghel in
Mesopotamia, who translated into Syriac certain works of the
Alexandrian Cyril about A.p. 550, describes a version of the
“New Testament and Psalter made in Syriac by Polycarp,
Rural-Bishop* (rest his soul!) for Xenaias of Mabug,”’ &c.
This Xenaias or Philoxenus, from whom the translation takes
its name, was Monophysite Bishop of Mabug (Hierapolis) in East-
ern Syria (488—518), and doubtless wished to provide for his
countrymen a more literal translation from the Greek than the
Peshito aims at being. His scheme may perhaps have been
injudicious, but it is a poor token of the presence of that quality
which “thinketh no evil,’ to assert, without the slightest
grounds for the suspicion, ‘‘ More probable it is that his object
was of a less commendable character; and that he meant the
version in some way to subserve the advancement of his party?.”
Dr Davidson will have learnt by this time, that one may lie
under the imputation of heresy, without being of necessity a
bigot or a dunce.

1 On the order, functions and decay of the Χωρεπίσκοποι, see Bingham’s Anti-
quities, Book 11., Chapter XIv.
2 Davidson, Bibl. Crit. Vol. m1. p. 186.
16

242 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE

Our next account of the work is even more definite. At
the end of the manuscripts of the Gospels from which the
printed text is derived, we read a subscription by the first
hand, importing that “this book of the four holy Gospels was
translated out of the Greek into Syriac with great diligence and
labour...first in the city of Mabug, in the year of Alexander
of Macedon 819 (A. p. 508), in the days of the pious Mar Phi-
loxenus, confessor, Bishop of that city. Afterwards it was col-
lated with much diligence by me, the poor Thomas, by the help
of two [or three] approved and accurate Greek Manuscripts in
Antonia, of the great city of Alexandria, in the holy monastery
of the Antonians. It was again written out and collated in
the aforesaid place in the year of the same Alexander 927 (A.D.
616), Indiction rv. How much toil I spent wpon it and its
companions, the Lord alone knows”...&e. It is plain that by
“its companions” the other parts of the N.'T. are meant, for
though but one manuscript of the Acts and Epistles in this
version survive, a similar subscription (specifying but one manu-
script) is annexed to the Catholic Epistles; those of St Paul
are defective from Hebr. xi. 27, but two manuscripts are cited
in the margin.

That the labour of Thomas (surnamed from Harkel, his
native place, and like Philoxenus, subsequently Monophysite
bishop of Mabug) was confined to the collation of the manu-
scripts he names, and whose various readings, usually in
Greek characters, with occasional exegetical notes, stand in the
margin of all copies but one at Florence, is not a probable
opinion. It is likely that he added the asterisks and obeli which
abound in the version, and G. H. Bernstein (De Charklenst
N. T. transl. Syriac. Commentatio, Breslau, 1837) believes that
he so modified the text itself, that it only remains in the state
in which Polycarp left it in one codex now at Rome, which he
collated for a few chapters of St John. From this and other
copies yet uncollated, as well as from quotations met with in
Syriac writers, it may possibly appear that the difference be-
tween the state of the version before and after the recension of
Thomas of Harkel is more considerable than from his own ex-
pressions we might have anticipated.

We are reminded by Tregelles, who is always ready to
give every one his due, that our own Pococke in 1630, in the

NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 243

Preface to his edition of the Catholic Epistles wanting in the
Peshito (see p. 233), both quotes an extract from Dionysius
Barsalibi, Bishop of Amida (Diarbekr), in the twelfth century
(see p. 239), which mentions this version, and even shews some
acquaintance with its peculiar character. Although again brought
to notice in the comprehensive Bibliotheca Orientalis (1719—28),
of the elder J. S. Assemani [1687—1768], the Philoxenian at-
tracted no attention until 1730, in which year Samuel Palmer
sent from Diarbekr to Dr Gloucester Ridley four Syriac manu-
scripts, two of which proved to belong to this translation, both
containing the Gospels, one of them being the only extant copy
of the Acts and all the Epistles. Fortunately Ridley [1702—
1774] was a man of some learning and acuteness, or these pre-
cious codices might have lain disregarded as other copies of the
same version had long done in Italy; so that though he did not
choose, in spite of his fair preferment in the Church, to incur
the risk of publishing them in full, he communicated his dis-
covery to Wetstein, who came to England once more, in 1746,
for the purpose of collating them for his edition of the N. T.,
then soon to appear: he could spare, however, but fourteen days
for the task, which was far too short a time, and the more
so as the Estrangelo character was new to him. In 1761
Ridley produced his tract, De Syriacarum N. F. Versionum
Indole atque Usu Dissertatio, and on his death his manuscripts
went to New College, of which society he had been a Fellow.
The care of publishing them was then undertaken by the
Delegates of the Oxford Press, who selected for their editor
Joseph White [1746—1814], then Fellow of Wadham College,
and Professor of Arabic, afterwards Canon of Christ Church,
who, though now, I fear, chiefly remembered for the most foolish
action of his life, was an industrious, able and genuine scholar.
Under his care the Gospels appeared in 2 vol. 4°, 17881, with a
Latin version and satisfactory Prolegomena; the Acts and
Catholic Epp. in 1799, the Pauline in 1803. Meanwhile Storr

1 Sacrorum Evangeliorum Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana, ex Codd. MSS. Rid-
leianis in Bibliotheca Novi Collegii Oxon. repositis; nunc primum edita, cum
Interpretatione Latina et Annotationibus Josephi White. Oxonii e Typographeo
Clarendoniano, 1778. 2tom. 45, And so for the two later volumes. Ridley named
that one of his manuscripts which contains only the Gospels Codex Barsalibaei,
as notes of revision by that writer are found in it (e.g. John vii. 53—viil. 11).

16—2

244 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE

(Observat. super Ν. T. vers. Syr. 1772) and Adler (N. T. Version.
Syr. 1789) had examined and described seven or eight conti-
nental codices of the Gospels in this version, some of which
are thought superior to White’s.

The characteristic feature of the Philoxenian is its excessive
closeness to the original: it is probably the most servile version
of Scripture ever made. Specimens of it will appear on pp. 249
—251, by the side of those from other translations, which will
abundantly justify this statement. The Peshito is beyond doubt
taken as its basis, and is violently changed in order to force
it into rigorous conformity with the very letter of the Greek.
In the twenty verses of Matth. xxviii we note 76 such altera-
tions: three of them seem to concern various readings (vv. 2;
18; and 5 marg.); six are inversions in the order; about five
are substitutions of words for others that may have grown
obsolete: the rest are of the most frivolous description, the
definite state of nouns being placed for the absolute, or vice
versd; the Greek article represented by the Syriac pronoun;
the inseparable pronominal affixes (that delicate peculiarity of
the Aramean dialects) retrenched or discarded; the most un-
meaning changes made in the tenses of verbs, and the lesser
particles. Its very defects, however,-as a version give it weight
as a textual authority: there can be no hesitation about the
readings of the copies from which such a book was made. While
those employed for the version itself in the sixth century re-
sembled more nearly our modern printed editions, the three
or more codices used by Thomas at Alexandria must have
been nearly akin to Cod. D (especially in the Acts), and next
to D, support BL 1. 33. 69.

The asterisks (+) and obeli (\y ~) of this version will be
observed in our specimens (pp. 250—1), and seem to be due to
Thomas of Harkel. Like the similar marks in Origen’s Hewa-
pla (from which they were doubtless borrowed), they have
been miserably displaced by copyists; so that their real pur-
pose is a little uncertain. Wetstein, and after him even Storr
and Adler, refer them to changes made in the Philoxenian from
the Peshito: White more plausibly considers the asterisk to
intimate an addition to the text, the obelus to recommend a
removal from it,

NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 245

(4). The Jerusalem Syriac.

Of this version but one manuscript has been discovered, and
that virtually by Adler, who collated, described and copied a
portion of it (Matth. xxvii. 3—32) for that great work in a
small compass, his N. 7. Verstones Syriacae: 8. E. Assemani
the nephew had merely inserted it in his Vatican Catalogue
(1756). It is a partial Lectionary of the Gospels in the Vatican
(MS. Syr. 19), on 196 quarto thick vellum leaves, written in
two columns in a rude hand (F being expressed by 2, P by B),
with rubric notes of Church-lessons in the Carshunic, i.e.
bad Arabic in Syriac letters. From a subscription we learn
that the scribe was Elias, a presbyter of Abydos, who wrote
it in the Monastery of the Abbot Moses at Antioch, in the
year of Alexander 1341, or A. p. 1030. Adler gives a poor fac-
simile (Matth. xxvii. 12—22): the character is peculiar, and all
diacritic points (even that distinguishing dolath from rish), as
as well as many other changes, are thought to be by a later
hand. ‘'Tregelles confirms Assemani’s statement, which Adler
had disputed, that the first six leaves, shewing traces of Greek
writings buried beneath the Syriac, proceeded from another
scribe. ‘The remarkable point, however, about this version
(which seems to be made from the Greek, and is quite indepen-
dent of the Peshito) is the peculiar dialect it exhibits, and
which has suggested its name. Its grammatical forms are far
less Syriac than Chaldee, which latter it resembles even in
that characteristic particular, the prefixing of yud, not nun,
to the third person masculine of the future of verbs’; the
most ordinary words it employs can be illustrated only from
the Chaldee portions of the Old Testament, from the Jerusalem
Targum, or the Talmud*. Adler’s account of the translation

1 Thus also the termination of the definite state plural of nouns is made in ἢ
for | : the third person affix to plural nouns in τ for 22010,
2 Thus in the compass of the six verses we have cited from Adler (below, p. 250)

occur not only the Greek words Len0;-0 (καιρὸς) τ. 3, and Ἰοὺ: (ναὸς) v. 5,

which are common enough in all Syriac books, but such Chaldaisms as +s) for
2 δὲ (w. 4, 6, ἢ); eeDD, ὁ. 3, “when;” Jor, v. 3, “repented;” [op|
for Too, νυ, 4, 6, 8, ‘*blood ;” Olle SS v. 4, **to us;” borg, v. 5, “himself ;”

246 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE

and its copyist is not very flattering “satis constat dialectum
esse incultam et inconcinnam...... orthographiam autem vagam,
inconstantem, arbitrariam, et ab imperito librario rescribendo
et corrigendo denuo impeditam” (Vers. Syr. p. 149). As it
is mentioned by no Syriac writer, it was probably used but
in a few remote churches of Lebanon or Galilee: but though
(to employ the words of Porter) ‘in elegance far surpassed by
the Peshito; in closeness of adherence to the original by the
Philoxenian” (Principles of Textual Criticism, Belfast, 1848,
Ρ. 356); it has its value, and that not inconsiderable, as a
witness to the state of the text at the time it was turned into
Syriac; whether, with Adler, we regard it as derived from a
complete version of the Gospels made not later than the sixth
century, or with Tischendorf refer it to the fifth, or with
Tregelles (who examined the codex at Rome) it be thought
a mere translation of some Greek Kvyangelistarium of a more
recent date. Of all the Syriac books, this copy and Barsalibi’s
recension of the Philoxenian (see p. 243 note) alone contain John
vii. 58—viii. 11; the Lectionary giving it as the Proper Lesson
for Oct. 8, St Pelagia’s day (see above, p. 74). In general its
readings much resemble those of Codd. BD, siding with B 85
times, with D 79; but with D alone 11 times, with B alone
but 3.

(5). Akin to this Jerusalem version, as Tischendorf suspects,
and certainly resembling it in the shape of its letters, is a pa-
limpsest fragment brought by him “ from the East” (see p. 121),
and now at St Petersburg, briefly described in his Anecdota
sacra et profana, p. 13, and there illustrated by a facsimile.
He assigns its date to the fifth century, but it yet remains to
be collated.

(6). The Karkaphensian Syriac.

Assemani (Biblioth. Orient. 'Tom. 11. p. 283), on the au-
thority of Gregory Barhebraeus (above p. 231), mentions a Syriac
version of the N. T., other than the Peshito and Philoxenian,

oO}, v. 6, “price” (Pesh. has «τον ὁ, Philox, LOA, τιμὴ); nities v.8,

‘* therefore ;” olan: v. 8, ΚΓ this,” made up of Syr. oot and Chald, Ἰσι.

NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 247

which was named “ Karkaphensian” ({A.a.0;.0), whether be-
cause it was used by Syrians of the mountadns, or from Carcuf,
a city of Mesopotamia. Adler (Vers. Syr. p. 83) was inclined
to believe that Barhebraeus meant rather a revised manuscript
than a separate translation, but Cardinal Wiseman, in the course
of those youthful studies which gave such scemly, precocious,
deceitful promise (Horae Syriacae, Rom. 1828), discovered in the
Vatican (MS. Syr. 153) a Syriac translation of both Testa-
ments, with the several portions of the New standing in the fol-
lowing order; Acts, James, 1 Peter, 1 John, the fourteen Epistles
of St Paul, and then the Gospels (see p. 62), these being the
only books contained in the Peshito (see p. 231). On being
compared with that venerable translation, the Vat. 153 was
found to resemble it much, (though the Peshito is somewhat
less literal), only that in Proper Names and Greek words it
follows the more exact Philoxenian. In the margin also are
placed by the first hand many readings indicated by the notation
a, which turns out to mean the Peshito. The codex is on
thick yellow vellum, in large folio, with the two columns so
usual in Syriac writing; the ink, especially the points in ver-
milion, has often grown pale, and it has been carefully re-
touched by a later hand; the original document being all the
work of one scribe: some of the marginal notes refer to various
readings. There are several long and tedious subscriptions
in the volume, whereof one states that the copy was written
“in the year of the Greeks 1291 (a. Ὁ. 980) in the [Monophy-
site] monastery of Aaron on [mount] Sigara, in the jurisdiction
of Calisura, in the days of the Patriarchs John and Menna,
by David a deacon of Urin in the jurisdiction of Gera” [Téppa,
near Beroea or Aleppo]. It may be remarked that Assemani
has inserted a letter in the Bibliotheca Orientalis from John the
Monophysite Patriarch [of Antioch] to his brother Patriarch,
Menna of Alexandria. This manuscript, of which Wiseman
gives a rather rude facsimile, is deemed by him of great im-
portance in tracing the history of the Syriac vowel-points. He
names other manuscripts (e.g. Barberini 101) which seem to
belong to this version, and reserves a full collation for that more
convenient season which in his tumultuous life is yet to come.
We subjoin Matth. i. 19 in four versions, wherein the close con-

248 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS, &c.

nexion of the Karkaphensian with the Peshito is very manifest.
The vowel points of the Karkaphensian are irregularly put, and
deserve notice.

PESHITO. KARKAPHENSIAN,
2 =O y a cee Ἢ Pax . φῦ
ble adso 4) nes bis oso UO) ama,

σαν φρο 155 No Jon OL.) Io, lo lon
ped Δλα λῶν .i32]o | laps, jon ussdio

«σι...
CURETONIAN. PHILOXENIAN.
Eo dso ὦ») ama, Lay ool 44? ama,
jon lo, D blo loot] : Jom «σιοΔ.} ble» odo

_”*"

wtillo SaustoS omzay |: cima jon Io. Lo
σιν ΔΊΣ στο» Joon Lipa L2aho> aan]

Marg. παραδειγματίσαι.

We have now traced the history of the several Syriac
versions, so far at least as to afford the reader some general
idea of their relative importance as materials for the correction”
of the sacred text. On pp. 249—251 are given parallel versions
of Matth. xi. 1—4; Mark xvi. 17—20 from the Peshito, the
Curetonian, and the Philoxenian, the only versions yet published
in full; for Matth, xxvii. 3—8, in the room of the Curetonian,
which is here lost, we have substituted the Jerusalem Syriac;
and have retained throughout Thomas’ marginal notes to the
Philoxenian, its asterisks and obeli. We have been compelled
to employ the common Syriac type, though every manuscript
of respectable antiquity is written in the Estrangelo character.
Even from these slight specimens the servile strictness of the
Philoxenian, and some leading characteristics of the other ver-
sions, will readily be apprehended by an attentive student (e. g.
Cureton. Matth. xii, 1; 4; Mark xvi, 18; 20).

LoCo ox a ol

Lor i> ἰσστοςτο smaoligodu "ΘΙΌΤΝ ς

Loo Ὅϑιθγν τ
στ -«ςοἕτιοον"
Vor Soyo: [ἢ P sored
sw ol SIO Sosy οἡ
dorroyey Coy [oQ\? Ly ἐῃ

τ τοῦτο AHL oyeay|
cioe>, oye iscsi: (7) [oT]
Soo ἢ oto ost] τοῦ ior?
SHS! σσογι! (g) 100 & |στ!
TI τ τ πιὰ too oF | ESTP
i> cl. «ἰο. στο τιο ". το]
στε τὸ στη] OST (Ὁ St]
πος τισιοτ᾽ ἐτὸ cot:
mes τε τ Sey Pe:

(1) Stoo lor: στιοτ Loo|

“NVINGXOTIHd

ostrD

ποτὸν

IS STO eso [ἢ δ᾽ τριρη
[δ] ἰῇ Sto SHH tol SoS),
Foryo HH ol" ols στὴ τττος
ols isopo: (1) [eTL SH
ean: isn see tod oh cer
oh yrs (0) [ost πιοῦν ἢ
AT, SHO THINS ovos tf
(2) Gi eto [τὸ τσὴ jos sno"
“τ! otc ojo ο᾽στ τ"

7 δ διοσ- στττ' οσ! το στ τὸ

“TON στον] ory ἰς τῇ"

(1) οσιοο ἰστὶ στιοτ τοῦ]
᾿ΝΥΙΝΟΙΠΈΏΟ

‘T_T ἹΓΧ MABLLV]T

In D sce, ἐπ τοὶ
lool Slo πεσε oof IS
ἐφγϑειο ἐστὶν] |E\t 109 ἔῃ Sh

w
¢SO5LO’
4

S\ SETI ANIL: Osea
ct os ols tsomo: (5) [oT

a ἰοτ
Sore oral (Ὁ tp tc [or
ari sete στε Te
fe σ' “ἰο Ie ΠΝ yo
Aiea Lelss > @ sty
ογεσττοίοτο CSTD : oro
orsy| lst

(1) Gioo Ist: osloy LoO|

“OLIHSad

Let

“FON Srey,

ὯΑἋΚἵἵ. ῬΘἙ .

i ee
“smannd9y ς $
‘avangdoy , ‘oLnz3Alun ¢ ‘lio, “aomgn τ “Savy

Doren} εἴσῃ τίσῃ Sroortt
wi] [ot το ogen] two:
τοῦ σα 8) oy
ἱὅτο σττιοῦ ora, stort}
|ryod ὦ ch ἐπὸ σπῖτι τοῦτο:
SY στεσ τη : HY SF roy] Moy]
Jews] loro: ἢ ἐτ τῦ' τ τίσττο
9) «στο σιοτ i> οἱ στο [τ
eT olin, vei = Loo τιο κ᾽
(0) oct tm [ro Sows] Clot]:
é> Jost σττὶ SOP? [Fy 7}
sir tlesony ἐσῃ ler} toro
al OS aed RE a
post LoS TCP cE] St
‘lesen ct \77or:
(¢) torte οἱ cet] ττοοῖ! 100

gre:

“NVINGXOTIHd

[Ὁ ‘1 sojou ‘Ste "ἃ oog]
Lolo OY, [fos] τὶ OST]:
στ (8) SEM [7o7 FOE
Gio’ Foo ἐστ τασσστς
(moyen (στττοὶ ὦ 6) οἰστο
Sh), ἑϊοο tos tlio} ὦ) τατοὸ
“τοὺ ito τγίο σστεστὶ "
GLO] ἐπε στο CME] οἱστὸ ἢ
(9) ss]
() of | cos}

STUD ITN ore Moy δ

TTT [7 76H ἡ

lies Siro 4 im [ovo σὴ

οσστα 6) olost [OEY corest7

OTT THVT iowa] Sire] isto]

rLooias ἐστοσ! “γιο (lz τιο]
() στγιο orton] Gor ci «ἐὐτὶ

‘OVIUAS WaTysouger

8π “ITAXX ‘HLL

toro’

| ἐάσῃ Slo τε τοσττ]

tor [ot Pea] wo: σεῖι
SEV oe sary ἡ GT
TLE! lS cro Pocano ioe]
AT) νὰν ἐστ Loo’ (1) OWS
sh irtoyrolo™ ory στεστί
= OMT SSE alae ἢ
clin, ES FERC: (0) SM crer]
(Ὁ) geinom core] ioc] or
yo Sot SL εἰς lev
ijesea ἐσὴ Leth erp E> ἰστίο
woot τος τὸ γε ῦτὸ towel] SIS
eal rene “ron Sosa Olly

(Ὁ) wot moot) open ct

‘OLIHNSAd

6) olost ““ξτ7

loom
wol? Se {7971 wor ἐπα
ci ost] σττῖς too] οτος γ]} OFe"s
i cl roo [cle Soy, iocy| :
> HT ἐξ τοῖν“ (oz)
CHP FOO [BYVS τ σσττὶ
OF LOST, Gir] Tw:
οὐ ο Ὑ ricco

1h I τῷ σέο {5}
of = σσῃ © στσττγτί στος eyo
8) # οὐ στ © ev07| reoy:

Loro

ove

γοστστο : ξ * (61) Loo

γοσο' 4

SyEt| τό ἔστττεν
eS fom Seo ceca sc),
(41) [797] & Store ἐστιοτσιττο

“NVINUX OTH

0641 λον

LOOO*
4

ONT! aR size7| fei

ale oe
OFS τοῦ] σΊτοτὶ ἔπι π΄ LoCo fog]: oo) σττῖς ib0| 100 :
os] τύτιοο , 5) Ξ : ᾿
χὰ. SPs Pare ἡ ior) ἐπ PED o|ctlo Soy
é> ποσοῦ o|ctlo GSDY, coc] ct - ae ΕΣ
; DHT OY στὴ OFA] OHIO:
OVS | OMY OF τστττί SHp10|° (02) Lord | ee ee. as
στ Sys tay τῦτιοο Teor]
Pome SATs ATS τ ᾿ :
ὀγγστσνο (ἡ “ON ie? στ:
ir SO) στο γε = tao 2 4 “ ἃ 3 ἣν ὙΠ ΟΣ
τὰ τ 0| 4-100. coro Ore Ξ e1O|
γστοτο |?-100° οτος στο" (61) στὸ x % < : : τ
᾿ ξ reo rLoc co
rey qo τοὶ [Oo + sy cto} Soul Pes he Sees ὦ
9 = ἘΣ Ἷ
δ ξίτιοῦν of σίος τσὶ ἐστοῦ | 8 SrrPeZL το οἱ ταδὶ
ἢ πο Ξ eae aos Si
ca) PSST (1) “ὍΟ7] τσ | “ULES CONTE σ δον δος
GeusT (τοὶ τοῦθ" στ τὶ ἐστιοτστττο iT we Sey
τ ἐσείότοτττε Ἐπ oS Gi: Ἐ 7." 5 ἘΣ
“NVINOLAYN9N “OLIHSAd

252 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE

4. Tue Lavin Versions. (1). Zhe Old Latin, previous to
Jerome’s revision.

Since we know that a branch of the Christian Church
existed at Rome “many years” before St Paul’s first visit to
that city (Rom. xy. 23), and already flourished there towards
the end of the first century, it seems reasonable to conjecture
that the earliest Latin version of Holy Scripture was made for
the use of believers in the capital, or at all events in other parts
of Italy (Heb. xiii. 24). There are, moreover, passages in the
works of the two great Western Fathers of the fourth century,
Jerome [345?—420] and Augustine [3854—430], whose obvi-
ous and literal meaning might lead us to conclude that there
existed in their time many Latin translations, quite independent
in their origin, and used almost indifferently by the faithful.
Their statements are very well known, but must needs be cited
anew, as bearing directly on the point now at issue. When
Jerome, in that Preface to the Gospels which he addressed to
Pope Damasus (366—84), anticipates but too surely the unpo-
pularity of his revision of them among the people of his own
generation, he consoles himself by the reflection that the varia-
tions of previous versions prove the unfaithfulness of them
all: “« verum non esse quod variat, etiam maledicorum testimonio
comprobatur.”” Then follows his celebrated assertion: “Si
enim Latinis exemplaribus fides est adhibenda, respondeant
quibus: tot enim sunt exemplaria pen? quot codices.” The
testimony of Augustine seems even more explicit, and at first
sight conclusive. In his treatise De Doctrind Christiand (Lib. τι.
capp. 11—15), when speaking of “ Latinorum interpretum in-
finita varietas,” and “interpretum numerositas,” as not with-
out their benefit to an attentive reader, he uses these strong
expressions: “Qui enim Scripturas ex Hebrae&é lingua in
Graecam verterunt, numerari possunt, Latini autem interpretes
nullo modo. Ut enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in
manus venit codex Graecus, et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utri-
usque linguae habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari”’ (c. 11) ;
and he soon after specifies a particular version as preferable

NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 253

to the rest: “In ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala! caeteris
praeferatur. Nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sen-
tentiae” (c. 14—5). And, indeed, the variations subsisting
between the several extant manuscripts of the Old Latin are
so wide and so perpetual, as in the judgment of no less eminent
a critic than Ernesti (Jnstit. Interpretis, Pt. 11. Chap. rv. § 11,
Terrot’s translation) ‘‘to prove an original diversity of ver-
sions.” Such is, no doubt, the priméd facte view of the whole
case.

When, however, the several codices of the version or ver-
sions antecedent to Jerome’s revision came to be studied by
Sabatier and Blanchini, and through their labours to be placed
within the reach of all scholars?, it was soon perceived, that
with many points of difference between them, there were evident
traces of a common source from which all originally sprung:
and on a question of this kind occasional divergency, how-
ever extensive, cannot weaken the impression produced by re-
semblance, if it be too close or too constant to be attributed
to chance (see above, p. 238). A single example out of thou-
sands, taken almost at random, will best illustrate our meaning
(Matth. xx. 1, 2). “Simile est enim...[regnjum caelorum
homini patri familias, qui exiit primo mane conducere opera-
rios in vineam suam. Conventione autem facta cum operariis
ex denario diurno, misit eos in vineam suam.”’ Thus stand the
verses in the Vercelli manuscript, the oldest and probably the
best monument of the Latin before Jerome. In the other copies
there is pretty much variation ; five or six omit enim, one reads
autem in its room: one spells coelorwm; in one pater is inserted
before exiit; two have eavit; one reads primd mane; one
(Tischendorf’s Codex Palatinus) begins v. 2 more idiomatically,
‘et convenit illi cum operariis denario diurno et misit...”; one
adds operari after mistt eos. The general form of the construc-

1 For tala Bentley boldly conjectured οὐ ila, changing the following nam
into quae; Potter more plausibly suggests usitata for Itala; but alteration is quite
needless.

2 «¢Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones Antiquae, seu Vetus Italica, et
ceterae quaecunque in Codicibus MSS. et Antiquorum Libris reperiri potuerunt..,
Opera et studio D. Petri Sabatier. Romae 1743—9, fol. 3 tom.,” and the far
superior work, “‘ Evangeliarium Quadruplex Latinae Versionis Antiquae, seu
Veteris Italicae, editum ex Codicibus Manuscriptis...a Josepho Blanchino, Romae
1749. fol., 2 tom.”

254 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE

tion, however, is the same in all; all (except the Latin of Cod. _
D, which hardly belongs to this class of documents: see p. 103)
retain the characteristic ‘‘ denarto diurno’’: so that the result
of the whole, and of innumerable like instances, is a conviction
that they are all but offshoots from one parent stock, modifi-
cations more or less accidental of one single primitive version.
Now when, this fact fairly established, we look back again to
the language employed by Jerome and Augustine, we can easily
see that, with some allowance for his habit of rhetorical exag-
geration, the former may mean no more than that the scattered
copies (exemplaria) of the one Old Latin translation vary widely
from each other; and though the assertions of Augustine are
too positive to be thus disposed of, yet he is here speaking, not
from his personal knowledge so much as from vague conjecture ;
of what had been done not in his own time, but “in the first
ages of our faith;” and the illustrious Bishop of Hippo, with
all his earnest godliness, his spiritual discernment and mighty
strength of reasoning, must yield place as a Biblical critie and
an investigator of Christian history to many (Eusebius or
Jerome for example) who were far his inferiors in intellectual
power.

On one point, however, Augustine must be received as a
competent and most sufficient witness. We cannot hesitate to
believe that one of the several translations or recensions current
towards the end of the fourth century was distinguished from
the rest by the name of tala, and in his judgment deserved
praise for its clearness and fidelity. It was long regarded as
certain that in Augustine’s Jialic we might find the Old Latin
version in its purest form, and thatgit had obtained that appel-
lation from Italy, the native country of the Latin language and
literature, where Walton thinks it likely that it had been used
from the very beginning of the Church, ‘cum Keclesia Latina
sine versione Latina esse non potuerit’’ (Proleg. x. 1). Mill,
indeed, who bestowed great pains on the subject, reminds us
that the first Christians at Rome were composed to so great an
extent of Jewish and other foreigners whose vernacular tongue
was Greek, that the need of a Latin translation of Scripture
would not at first be felt; yet even he could not place its date
later than the Pontificate of Pius 1. (142—57), the first Bishop
of Rome after Clement that bears a Latin name (Mill. Proleg.

NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 255

8 377). It was not till attention had been specially directed
to the style of the Old Latin version that scholars began to
suspect its AFRICAN origin, of which no hint had been given
by early ecclesiastical writers, and which possesses in itself no
great inherent probability. This opinion, which had obtained
favour with Eichhorn and some others before him, may be con-
sidered as demonstrated by Cardinal Wiseman, in a brief and
fugitive pamphlet entitled “ Z'%wo letters on some parts of the con-
troversy concerning 1 John v. 7,” Rome, 1835, since republished
in his Hssays on various subjects, Vol. 1. 1853. So far as his
argument rests on the exclusively Greek character of the pri-
mitive Roman Church, a fact which Mill seems to have insisted
on quite enough, it may not bring conviction to the reflecting
reader. Even though the early Bishops of Rome were of
foreign origin, though Clement towards the end of the first,
Caius the presbyter late in the second century, who are proved
by their names to be Latins, yet chose to write in Greek; it
does not at all follow that the Church contained not many
humbler members, both Romans and Italians, ignorant of any
language except Latin, for whose instruction a Latin version
would still be urgently required. On the ground of internal
evidence, however, Wiseman has made out a case which all who
have followed him, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Davidson, Tre-
gelles, accept as irresistible: indeed it is not easy to draw any
other conclusion from his elaborate comparison of the words,
the phrases, and grammatical constructions of the Latin version of
Holy Scripture, with the parallel instances by which they can
be illustrated from African writers, and from them only (Hssays,
Vol. τ. pp. 446—66). It is impossible to exhibit any adequate
abridgement of an investigation which owes all its cogency to
the number and variety of minute particulars, each one weak
enough by itself, the whole comprising a mass of evidence which
cannot be gainsayed. As the earliest citations from the Old
Latin are found in the ancient translation of Irenaeus, and the
African fathers Tertullian [150 ?—220?] and Cyprian [d. 258] ;
so from the study of Tertullian and other Latin authors natives
of North Africa, especially of the Roman proconsular province
of that name, we may understand the genius and character of
the peculiar dialect in which it is composed; such writers are
Appuleius in the second century, Arnobius, Lactantius and

250 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE

Augustine of the fourth. In their works, as in the Old Latin
version, are preserved a multitude of words which occur in
no Italian author so late as Cicero: constructions (e.g. domi-
nantur eorum Luke xxi. 25; faciam vos fiert Matth. iv. 19) or
forms of verbs (sive consolamur...sive exhortamur 2 Cor. 1. 6)
abound, which at Rome had long been obsolete; while the
palpable lack of classic polish is not ill atoned for by a certain
terseness and vigour which characterises this whole class of
writers, but never degenerates into vulgarity or absolute bar-
barism.

Besides the vestiges of the Old Latin translation detected
by Sabatier and others in the Latin Fathers and Apologists
from Tertullian down to Augustine, the following manuscripts
of the version are extant, and have been cited by critics since
the appearance of Lachmann’s edition (1842—-50) by the small
italic letters of the alphabet.

Manuscripts of the Gospels.

a. Coprx VERCELLENSIS [1v] at Vercelli, said to have been writ-
ten by Eusebius Bishop of Vercellae and Martyr. J/wt. in many letters
and words throughout, and entirely wanting in Matth. xxv. 1—16;
Mark i, 22—34; iv. 17—24; xv. 15—xvi. 7 (xvi. 7—20 in a later
hand from Jerome’s Vulgate); Luke i. 1—12; xi. 12—25; xii, 38—
59. Published by J. A. Ivici (Sacrosanctus Evangeliorwm Codex
S. Husebii Magni), Milan 1748, and by Blanchini on the left-hand
page of his Lvangeliarium Quadruplex; the latter gives a facsimile,
but Tregelles states that Ivici represents the mutilated fragments the
more accurately.

b. Cop. Veronensis [ΠΥ or v] at Verona, also in Blanchini’s
Evang. Quadruplex, on the right-hand page. Mut, Matth. i. 1—11;
xv. 12—23; xxiii. 18—27; Mark xiii. 9—19; 24—xvi. 20; Luke
xix. 26—xxi. 29; John vii. 44—viii. 12 erased.

6. Cop. Corpert. [x1] at Paris, very important though so late;
edited in full by Sabatier (see p. 253 note 2), but beyond the Gospels
the version is Jerome’s, and in a Jater hand.

ε΄. Coprx Brzan, its Latin version: see pp. 96—103, and for its
mut. p. 97, note 1,

e. Cop, Paxatinus [iv or vy] at Vienna, on purple vellum, with
gold and silver letters, as are Codd. bfi, edited by Tischendorf (Zvan-
gelium Palatinum ineditum), Leipsic, 1847. The order of the books
plainly stands Matthew, John, Luke, Mark (the usual order in these
Latin codices, see p. 62), but only the following portions are extant:

»NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 257

Matth. xii. 49—xiii. 13; 24—xiv. 11 (with breaks); 22—xxiv. 49;
xxvii. 2—John xviii. 12; 25—Luke viii. 30; 48—x1i. 4; 24—53;
Mark i. 20—iv. 8; 19—vi. 9; xii. 37—40; xiii. 2, 3; 24—27; 33—
36: i.e. 2627 verses, including all John but 13 verses, all Luke but
38.

J Cop. Brrxtanus [v1] at Brescia, edited by Blanchini beneath
Cod. 6. Mut. Mark xii. 5—xiii. 32; xiv. 70—xvi. 20.

tT’, f°. Copp. CorBErEnsks, very ancient, once at the Abbey of
Corbey in Picardy. Of f° T. Martianay edited St Matthew and
St James (Vulgata Antiqua Latina et Itala versio ev. Matth. et ep.
Jacobi...Paris 1695), the first of any portion of the Old Latin, and
Blanchini repeated it underneath Cod. a, giving in its place the text
of f° in the other Gospels: but Sabatier cites 77. in Mark i. 1—v.
18 and 272 in all parts except Matth. i—xi, and a few other places,
wherein it is mut.

σ᾽, σ΄. Copp. SANGERMANENSES, like Paul. E (p. 132) and others,
once at the Abbey of St Germain des Prez, near Paris; very ancient.
Blanchini repeated the readings of these from Martianay in the mar-
gin of Cod. ff of St Matthew, but Sabatier gave the variations of
both throughout the Gospels: σ΄ is not often cited by him, and seems
mut.

h. Cop. CLaromontanus [Iv or v] bought for the Vatican by
Pius VI. (1774—99), contains only St Matthew in the Old Latin,
the other Gospels in Jerome’s revision. Mut. Matth. 1. 1—ii. 15;
xiv. 33—xvili. 12. Sabatier gave extracts and Mai published St
Matthew in full in his Seript. Vet. nova collectio Vaticana, Tom. II.
p. 257, Rom. 1828.

i. Cop. VINDOBONENSIS [Vv or vi] brought from Naples to Vienna,
contains Luke x. 6—xxiii. 10 (“evangel. secundum Lucanum” it is
termed); Mark 11. 17—iul. 29; iv. 4—x. 1; 33—xiv. 36; xv. 33—40.
This valuable codex has been published by Alter ad Paulus in
Germany in such a form that Tregelles has been obliged to resort to
Blanchini’s and Griesbach’s extracts, though Tischendorf has used
Alter’s publication’.

δ. Cop. Boxpsrensis [Iv or v] brought from Bobbio to Turin.
It is valuable, and contains Mark viii. 19—xvi. 8, followed by Matth.
iL 1—iii. 10; iv. 2—xiv. 17; xv. 20—xvi. 1; 5—7. It was most
wretchedly edited by F. F. Fleck in 1837, and not very well by
Tischendorf in the Wiener Jahrbiicher 1847, but he promises a
separate and more correct publication.

ἰ. Cop. RuepicErtanus [vu] at St Elizabeth’s church, Breslau;
mut., especially in St Johu. J. E. Scheibel in 1763 published Mat-
thew and Mark, far from correctly: D. Schulz wrote a Dissertation
on it in 1814, and inserted his collation of it in his edition of Gries-
bach’s N. T. Vol. 1. 1827.

1 His citation is from Alter, ‘‘N. Repert. d. bibl. u. morgen]. Literatur,” 111.
115—170, and to Paulus’ mene vil. p. 58—96 (Tischend. N. T. Prol.
p. 244, 7th edn.)

258 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE

m. This letter indicates the readings extracted by Mai (Spicile-
gium Romanum, 1843, Tom. 1x. pp. 61—86) from a “Speculum” [vr or
vit] which has been ascribed to Augustine, and is unique for contain-
ing extracts from the whole N.T. except St Mark, 3 John, Hebrews,
and Philemon. It is in the Monastery of Santa Croce, or Bibliotheca
Sessoriana (No. 58) at Rome. Wiseman drew attention to it in his
celebrated ‘‘ Two Letters,” 1835 (see p. 255), because it contains 1 John
v. 7 in two different places. Both he and Mai furnish facsimiles.
This “Speculum” (published in full by Mai, Patrwm Nova Collectio,
Vol. τ. pt. 2, 1852) consists of extracts from both Testaments, ar-
ranged in chapters under various heads or topics.

For the next four we are indebted to Tischendorf, who inserts
them in his 7th edition (N. T. Proleg. p. 245), and purposes to edit
them in full.

nm. Cop. SANGALLENSIS [V or Iv] at St Gall (see p. 112). It con-
tains Matth. xvii. 1—5; 14—18; xvii. 19—xviii. 20; xix. 21—xx.
7; 7—23 (defective); 23—xxi. 3; xxvi. 56—60; 69—74; xxvii. 3;
62—64; 66—xxviii. 2; 8—20; Mark vii. 13—31; viii. 32—ix. 9;
xii. 2—20; xv. 22—xvi. 13; 199 verses.

0, p are other fragments at St Gall: o [vit] contains Mark xvi.
14—20 in a hand of the Merovingian period: p [vm or vii1] contains
John xi. 14—44; it seems part of a lectionary in a Scottish (i.e. Irish)
hand, and from a specimen Tischendorf gives would appear to be very
loose and paraphrastic.

g. Cop. Monacensis [v1] at Munich. JJ/ut. Matth. 11]. 15—iv.
25; v. 25—vi. 4; 28—vii. 8; John x. 11—xii. 39; Luke xxiii. 22
—36; xxiv. 11—39; Mark i. 7—22; xv. 5—36: an important copy.

Add to this list Cod. 6, the interlinear Latin of Cod. A (see
p. 123), whatever be its value. Also Luke xvii. 3—29; xvill. 39—
xix. 47; xx. 46—xxi. 22, ἄο. [v] just published at Milan in Monu-
menta Sacra et Profana, ex Codd. praesertim Bibl. Ambrosian.

In the Acts we have Codd. dm as in the Gospels: e the Latin ver-
sion of Cod. E of the Acts (see above, p. 128), and s Cop. ΒΟΒΒΙΕΝΒΙΒ,
now at Vienna [v?], containing palimpsest fragments of Acts xxiii,
xxvii, xxviii: edited by Tischendorf and Eichenfeld (Wiener Jahr-
biicher, 1847).

In the Catholic Epistles are ff (Martianay) of St James and m as
in the Gospels; s as in the Acts, containing James 1, 1—4; iii. 13—
18; iv. 1; 2; v.19; 20; 1 Pet. i, 1—12.

In the Pauline Epistles we have m as in the Gospels. Codd. d,
6, f,g are the Latin versions of Codd, DEFG of St Paul, described
above, Cod. 1), p. 130; Cod. E, p. 132; Cod. F, p. 133; Cod. G, p. 135.
Sabatier had given extracts from de, though not very carefully: / (if
we except the interlinear Latin, see p. 135) rather belongs to Je-
rome’s recension,

gue. Cob. GUELFERBYTANUS [vi], fragments of Rom. xi. 33—xii. 5;
17—xiii. 1; xiv. 9—20; xv. 3—13 (33 verses), found in the great
Gothic palimpsest at Wolfenbiittel (see p. 113), and published with
the other matter by Knittel in 1762, and more fully by Tischendorf,
Anecdota sacra et profana, p. 153, ἄς,

NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 259

y. Cop. FristncEnsis [vi or v] on the covers of some books at
Munich. These precious fragments (1 Cor. 1. 1—27; 28—iii. 5; xv.
14—43; xvi. 12—24; 2 Cor.i. 1—10; iii. 17—-v. 1; ix. 10—xi. 21;
Phil. iv. 11—23; 1 Thess. 1. 1—10; 179 verses), were discovered by
J. A. Schmeller, were read and will be published by Tischendorf.

In the Apocalypse we have only m of the Gospels, and large ex-
tracts in the Commentary of Primasius, an African writer of the
sixth century, first cited by Sabatier.

These twenty-nine (or, counting the same copy more than
once, thirty-six) codices, compared with what extracts we
obtain from the Latin Fathers, comprise all we know of the
version before Jerome. Codd. abc and the fragments of 7 have
been deemed to represent the Old Latin in its primitive form,
as it originated in Africa, and agree remarkably with Cod. D
and the Curetonian Syriac, in regard to interpolations, and im-
probable or ill-supported readings: so far as they represent a
text as old as the second century, they prove that some manu-
scripts of that early date had already been largely corrupted.
Cod. e, also, though the specimens we shall give below (pp. 267,
268) shew extensive divergency from the rest, often bears a
striking resemblance to Cod. d and its parallel Greek. There
are, however, copies (Cod. f for instance) of which Lachmann
speaks, which “ab Afra sud origine mirum quantum discrepent,
et cum inimicissimis quasi colludant” (N. 7. Proleg. Vol. 1.
p- xii); and since these best agree with the quotations of
Augustine, who commended the Jtalic version (see p. 254), and
counselled that ‘‘emendatis non emendati cedant’’ (De Doct.
Chr. Lib. 11. ὁ. 14), and that “ Latinis quibuslibet emendandis,
Graeci adhibeantur” (ib. c. 15); it has been inferred, not im-
probably, though on somewhat precarious grounds, that such
codices are of the Italic recension, formed perhaps in the North
of Italy, by correcting the elder African from Greek manu-
scripts of a more approved class. It is obvious, however, that
little dependence can be placed on a theory thus slenderly sup-
ported!, nor would the critical value of the Jtalic be diminished

1 TI do not perceive the cogency of what Lachmann says that ‘‘ Wisemanus
egregie demonstravit” (NV. 7’. Proleg. Vol. 1. p. xiii) on this head from Augustine’s
argument against Faustus, the African Manichaean (Advers. Faust. Lib, ΧΙ,
c. 2). That heretic adopted the principle we are so familiar with now, of accept-
ing just so much of Scripture as suited his purpose, and no more: ‘“ Jnde probo
hoe illius esse, illud non esse, quia hoc pro me sonat, illud contra me.” Augustine,

17—2

200 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE

were we certain that it had sprung from a revision made by the
aid of such Greek codices as were the most highly esteemed
in the third or fourth century. Of the remaining copies, Codd.
hm?n, each with many peculiarities of its own, are assigned to
the African family, ἢ and g (which Tischendorf praises highly)
to the Italic, though & has been amended from “a Greek text
more Alexandrian than that which had been the original basis
of the Latin version” (Tregelles’ Horne, p. 239), and is other-
wise remarkable, especially for a habit of abridging whole
passages. Cod. ὦ is said to possess a mixed text, and ff”, σ᾽, σ᾽
to be of but little use, so far as they have been cited. It is
evident that much of this division is arbitrary, and that the
whole subject needs renewed and close investigation.

(2). Jerome’s revised Latin Version, commonly called
the Vulgate.

The extensive variations then existing between different
copies of the Old Latin version, and the obvious corruptions
which had crept into some of them, prompted Damasus, Bishop
of Rome, in A.D. 382, to commit the important task of a formal
revision of the New, and probably of the Old Testament, to
Jerome, a presbyter born at Stridon on the confines of Dalmatia
and Pannonia, probably a little earlier than A.p. 345, This
learned, fervent and holy man had just returned to Rome, where
he had been educated, from his hermitage in Bethlehem, and
in the early ripeness of his high reputation undertook a work
for which he was specially qualified, and whose delicate nature
he well understood!. Whatever prudence and moderation could
do (although these were not the peculiar excellences of his

of course, insists in reply on the evidence of ‘‘exemplaria veriora, vel plurium
codicum vel antiquorum vel linguae praecedentis” [i.e. the Greek],...‘‘ vel ex alia-
rum regionum codicibus, unde ipsa doctrina commeavit.” How all this tends te
prove that Faustus used African, Augustine Italic manuscripts, is not easily
understood.

1 “Novum opus me facere cogis ex veteri: ut post exemplaria Scripturarum
toto orbe dispersa, quasi quidam arbiter sedeam: et quia inter se variant, quae
sint illa quae cum Graeca consentiant veritate, decernam. Pius labor, sed pericu.
losa praesumptio, judicare de caeteris, ipsum ab omnibus judicandum: senis mu-
tare linguam, et canescentem jam mundum ad initia retrahere parvulorum,”
Praef. ad Damasum,

NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 261

character) to remove objections or relieve the scruples of the
simple, were not neglected by Jerome, who not only made as
few changes as possible in the Old Latin when correcting
its text by the help of ‘ancient’? Greek manuscripts}, but
left untouched many words and forms of expression, and not
a few grammatical irregularities, which in a new translation
(as his own subsequent version of the Hebrew Scriptures
makes clear) he would most certainly have avoided. The four
Gospels, as they stand in the Greek rather than the Latin
order (see p. 256), revised but not re-translated on this wise prin-
ciple, appeared in A.D. 384, accompanied with his celebrated
Preface to Damasus (‘“summus sacerdos”), who died that
same year. Notwithstanding his other literary engagements,
it is probable enough that his recension of the whole New
Testament for public use was completed A.p. 385, though
the proof alleged by Mill (NV. 7, Proleg. § 862), and others
after his example, hardly meets the case. In the next year
(A.D. 886), in his Commentary on Galat., Ephes., Titus and
Philem., he indulges in more freedom of alteration as a
translator than he had previously deemed advisable; while
his new version of the Old Testament from the Hebrew
(completed about A.D. 405) is not founded at all on the Old
Latin, which was made from the Greek Septuagint; the
Psalter excepted, which he executed at Rome at the same
date, and in the same spirit, as the Gospels. The boldness
of his attempt in regard to the Old Testament is that por-
tion of his labours which alone Augustine disapproved? (Au-
gust. ad Hieron. Ep. x. Tom. 11. p. 18, Lugd. 1586, a.p.
403), and indeed it was never received entire by the Western
Church, which long preferred his slight revision of the Old
Latin, made at some earlier period of his life. Gradually,
however, Jerome’s recension of the whole Bible gained ground,
as well through the growing influence of the Church of Rome,

1 «TEvangelia] Codicum Graecorum emendata collatione, sed veterum, quae ne
multum a lectionis Latinae consuetudine discreparent, ita calamo temperavimus, ut
his tantum quae sensum videbantur mutare correctis, reliqua manere pateremur ut
fuerant.”” Ibid. For a signal instance see below, Chap. Ix., note on Matth. xxi. 31.

2 To his well-known censure of Jerome’s rendering of the Old Testament from
the Hebrew, Augustine adds, “ Proinde non parvas Deo gratias agimus de opere
tuo, quod Evangelium ex Graeco interpretatus es: quia pene in omnibus nulla
offensio est, cum Scripturam Graecam contulerimus,”

202 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE

as from its own intrinsic merits: so that when in course of
time it came to take the place of the older version, it also took
its name of the Vulgate, or common translation. Cassiodorus
indeed, in the middle of the sixth century, is said to have
compared the new and old Latin (of the New, perhaps of
both Testaments) in parallel columns, which thus became
partially mixed in not a few codices: but Gregory the Great
(590—604), while confessing that his Church used both
(‘quia sedes Apostolica, cui auctore Deo praesideo, utraque
utitur,’ Lpist. Dedic. ad Leandrum, c. 5) awarded so decided
a preference to Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew, that this
form of his Old Testament version, not without some mix-
ture with his translation from the Septuagint (Walton, Prol.
x. pp. 242—244, Wrangham), and his Psalter and New Tes-
tament as revised from the Old Latin, came at length to
comprise the Vulgate Bible, the only shape in which Holy
Scripture was accessible in Western Europe (except to a
few scattered scholars) during the long night of the Middle
Ages. To guard it from accidental or wilful corruption, Char-
lemagne (A.D. 797) caused our countryman Alcuin to review
and correct certain copies, more than one of which are sup-
posed even yet to survive (e.g. one in the British Museum,
another described by Blanchini, in the ‘ Bibliotheca Valli-
cellensis’’ at Rome, which belongs to the Fathers of the
Oratory of 8. Philip Neri). Our Primate and benefactor, the
Lombard Lanfranc (1069—89) attempted a similar task (Mill,
N. T. Proleg. ὃ 1058); the aim too of the several subsequent
“ Correctoria Bibliorum”’ (see above, p. 153, note) was di-
rected to the same good end. ‘These remedies, as applied to
written copies, were of course but partial and temporary; yet
they were all that seemed possible before the invention of
printing. The firstfruits of the press, as it was very right
they should be, were Latin Bibles; the earliest (of which
some eighteen copies remain) a splendid and beautiful volume,
published in Germany about 1452. Of the many editions
which followed, that in the Complutensian Polyglott (1514
&e.: see Chapter v.) may be named as very elegant; but in
none of these does much attention seem to have been paid
to the purity of the text. Hence when the Council of Trent
in 1546 had declared that “haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio,

NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 263

quae longo tot saeculorum usu in ipsa ecclesia probata est,”
should be chosen “ex omnibus Latinis editionibus quae circum-
feruntur sacrorum librorum,” and “in publicis lectionibus, dis-
putationibus, praedicationibus, et expositionibus pro authentica
habeatur”’ (Sess. Iv. Can. 2); after assigning the lowest sense
possible to that ambiguous term “ authentic}, it became the
manifest duty of the Church of Rome to provide for its members
the most correct recension of the Vulgate that skill and dili-
gence could produce: in fact the Council went on to direct that
“nosthac Scriptura sacra, potissimtim verd haec ipsa vetus et
vulgata editio, quam emendatissimé imprimatur.” Yet it was
not until the Latin Bible had been left upwards of fifty
years longer to the enterprise of private persons (e.g. R. Ste-
phens in 1540, who gave various readings from 13 manuscripts;
Jo. Hentenius in the Louvain Bible of 1547; F. Lucas Brugen-
sis in 1573, 1584, &c.), that Sixtus V. (1585—90), apparently
after personally bestowing much laudable pains on the work,
which had been in preparation during the time of his three imme-
diate predecessors, sent forth what we might term his Autho-
rised Edition in 1590; not only commanding in the Bull pre-
fixed to the volume that it should be taken as the standard of
all future reprints, but even that all copies should be corrected
by it; and that all things contrary thereto in any manuscript
or printed book, which for its elegance might still be pre-
served, be of no weight or authority. Yet this edition (which ,
in places had itself received manual corrections by pen or by
paper pasted over it) was soon found so faulty that it was
called in to make room for another but two years afterwards
(1592) published by Clement VIII. (1592—1605), from which
it differs in many places. The high tone adopted by both
these Popes, and especially by Sixtus, who had yet to learn
that “there is no papal road to criticism” (Tregelles’ Horne, Vol.
IV. p. 251), afforded a rare opportunity to their enemies for up-
braiding them on the palpable failure of at least one of them.
Thomas James, in his Bellum Papale sive Concordia Discors
(London 1600), gives a long and curious list of the differences
of the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles, very humorous per-
haps as a kind of argumentum ad homines, but not a little

1 Τ must confess I see nothing unreasonable in the statements of the Roman
doctors cited by Walton, Proleg. x. Wrangham, Tom. 1. pp. 249—262.

264 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE

unbecoming when the subject is remembered to be an earnest
attempt to improve the accuracy of a great and widely-spread
version of Holy Scripture. One thing, however, is certain, that
neither the Sixtine nor Clementine editions (the latter of
which retains its place of paramount authority in the Roman
Church) was prepared on any intelligent principles of criti-
cism, or furnishes us with such a text as the best manuscripts
of Jerome’s Vulgate supply to our hands.

It was easy to enumerate all known eodices of the Latin be-
fore Jerome (pp. 256—9): those of his own version in the libra-
ries of Western Europe are absolutely countless: they probably
much exceed in number those of the Greek Testament, certainly
those of any other work whatever. By the aid of the oldest and
best of them Bentley proposed, Lachmann and 'Tregelles to some
extent have accomplished, the arduous task of reducing the
Vulgate from its Clementine form to the condition in which
Jerome left it. A very few of the best documents they have
employed are all that need to be described here.

_ 2 am. Copex AmIATINUs, brought into the Laurentian Library at
Florence from the Cistercian Monastery of Monte Amiatino, in Tus-
cany. It contains both Testaments, nearly perfect, in a fine hand,
stichometrically written by the Abbot Servandus, about a.p. 541.
A.M. Bandini first particularly noticed it (though from a memoran-
dum appended to it we find it had been looked at—hardly much
used—in 1587—90, for the Sixtine edition); the New Testament was
wretchedly edited by the unfortunate F. F. Fleck in 1840; collated
by Tischendorf 1843, and by Tregelles 1846 (del Furia re-collating
the codex in the places at which the two differed); published by Tis-
chendorf 1850, and again 1854. The Old Testament is yet in a great
measure unexamined. The Latin text of Tregelles’ N. T. (see Chap-
ter vy.) is based on this, doubtless the best manuscript of the Vulgate.

+ fuld. Coprx Fuupensis, of about the same age, is in the Abbey of
Fulda in Hesse Cassel. It contains the New Testament, all in the
same hand, written by order of Victor Bishop of Capua, who himself
corrected it, and subscribed to the Acts the date, a.p. 546. The
Gospels are arranged in a kind of Harmony which diminishes their
critical value. It was described by Schanna 1723 (Vindemiae Lite-
rariae Collectio, p. 218), collated by Lachmann and his coadjutor Ph.
Buttmann in 1839 for the Latin portion of his N. T. (see Chapter v.),
and will be edited by Ern. Ranke.

tol. Copex Totrranvs, at Toledo[?] of both Testaments, in Gothic
letters. Collated in 1588 for Sixtus’ Bible by Christ. Palomares,
whose papers were published by Blanchini, Vindiciae Canonicarum
Scripturarum, 1740.

NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 265

4 for. Coprex Forosuttensis [v1] at Friuli. Blanchini (Lvangeliarium
Quadruplex, Appendix) published three of the Gospels (mut. John xix.
29—40; xx. 19—xxi. 25). St Mark’s Gospel is. partly at Venice in
a wretched plight, partly (xii. 21—xvi. 20) at Prague. This last
portion was edited by Dobrowsky, 1778.

per. Fragments of St Luke (i. 26—1i. 46; iii. 4—16; iv. 9—22;
28—v. 36; viii. 11—xii. 7) at Perugia, somewhat carelessly edited by
Blanchini, Lvan. Quadr. Appendix.

ει harl. Cop. Harieran. 1775 [vu] Gospels partially collated by
Griesbach, Symbol. Crit. 1. 305—26.

Tregelles cites for the Gospels (N. T. 1857, 1860) no more than
the above-named: the following, taken from Tischendorf’s list (V. 7’.
Prol. pp. 248—51), are less known, or else of slighter value.

and. Gospels at St Andrew’s, Avignon: in Martianay 1695, Cal-
met 1726. bodl. Bodleian 857 [vir] fragments of N. T. inspected by
Mill and Tisch. cav. From the Trinity Monastery di Cava, near
Naples [vim] N. T.: used by Tisch. for 1 John v. 7, and by the Abb.
de Rozan, 1822. denuid. Of the whole Bible [x1], from old sources,
edited by Matthaei (N. T.) in the Act. Epp. Apoc.: it belonged to
Paul Demidov. em. from St Emmeram’s, Ratisbon; now at Munich
[dated 870]. Collated by P. C. Sanftl, 1786. Contains the Gospels,
as does also erl. At Erlangen, used by Sanftl. flor. Floriacensis, a
Lectionary in Sabatier. fos. Fossatensis of the Gospels [vur?], used at
St Germain’s by Sabatier. gat. Gospels at 8. Gatien’s, Tours [vi] in
Calmet, Sabatier, Blanchini. gue lect. A Wolfenbiittel palimpsest [νυ];
seen by Tisch. harl. Harleian. 1772 [xim], a text much mixed
with the Old Latin, contains all the Epistles except 3 John and
Jude (but Jude [x1] of a different text) and Apoc. (mut. xiv. 16—fin.).
Collated by Griesbach, Sym. Crit. τ. pp. 326—82. jac. St James,
Gospels [1x] used by Sanftl. ag. Gospels brought from Ingoldstadt
to Munich [vi], begins Matth. xxii. 39; mut. elsewhere. Seemiller
1784, Tisch. 1844. Le. brug. Readings extracted by Lucas Brugen-
sis (see p. 153, note) from Correctoria Bibliorum Latinorum, and used
by Sabatier. These readings are reprinted at length from the
Antwerp Polyglott 1569—72 in Walton’s Polyglott, Tom. vi. xvii.
p. 30. lips. 4, 5, 6. Three Leipsic copies of Apoc., collated in
Matthaei’s N. T. 1785. wx. Luxoviensis, a lectionary; Mabillon
1729, Sabatier. mar. Caesar Vindob. 287 [dated 1079| written by
Mariana the Scot (1. 6. Irishman). St Paul’s Epistles, collated in
Alter’s N. T. Vol. τι. pp. 1040—80. mm. ‘ Majoris Monasterii
(Marmoutier 87)” [x] Gospels collated by Calmet, Sabatier, Blanchini.
mt. Gospels at St Martin’s, Tours [vi], Sabatier used it for all
but St Matthew. reg. Several copies of the Gospels examined by
Sabatier at Paris, one fragment in purple and gold from St Germains
[vi] by Tischendorf. san. Fragments at St Gall of the Gospels and
St Paul, the latter palimpsests [v1], a very pure text, brought to
light by Tisch. 1857, who states that some leaves of the Gospels are
at Zurich. tawr. Gospels at Turin [vir], Tischendorf, Anecd. sacr.
et prof. p. 160; used by him in St Mark. ¢revir. Gospels at Tréves,
mentioned by Sanftl. trim. Trinity Coll. Cambridge, B. 10. 5. [1x]

᾿ς

266 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE

begins 1 Cor. vii. 32, ends about 1 Thess. Readings sent by Rev.
F. J. A. Hort to Tregelles. vat. “S. Mich. Breviar. Moz., Vat. olim
reginae Suec. 11” cited in Magnificat and Benedictus, Luke i, by Tis-
chendorf after Sabatier. The papers collected by Bentley for his
edition of the N. T. (see Chapter v.), now at Trinity College, Cam-
bridge, may also be expected to prove serviceable in restoring the
Latin Vulgate’.

On the whole it will probably be found that both as a
translation and as an aid to the criticism of the Greek text
of the New Testament, the Vulgate is far superior to the Old
Latin, which was either formed from manuscripts early inter-
polated, or (what is far more likely) was corrupted at a later
period. Jerome would probably allow great influence to the
revised Greek codices of Origen, of Pierius and Pamphilus,
to which he occasionally refers with approbation?; and since his
copies were of a character that Augustine also viewed with
favour’, we have no right to doubt that, so far as Jerome deemed
it prudent or necessary to correct the current Latin text, he
followed the Greek manuscripts most highly esteemed, at least
in the West, at the end of the fourth century. The connection
between the several forms of the Latin, before and after Jerome’s
recension, may be better seen by the following specimens.

In the diction of these several codices, notwithstanding
many individual peculiarities, there is enough to convince us
(as we saw above, p. 253) that they all had the same remote
origin. On the whole f comes nearest to Jerome’s version,
and @ nearer than dee, which have much in common, though
e is farthest removed from the Vulgate, being the loosest and
least grammatical of them all: d seldom agrees with any.

1 For the honour of Irish scholars the Book of Armagh, at Trinity College,
Dublin, ought to be added to our catalogue. It is the only complete Irish copy
of the Latin New Testament, the Pauline Epistles following the Gospels, then the
Catholic Epistles, the Apocalypse, and lastly the Acts: to the Colossians the
Epistle to the Laodiceans is subjoined (see Cod. G, p. 137). It dates about 807.
The Evangelists seem to stand in the usual Greek order.

2 The passages are cited at length in that curious medley of exact learning and
bad reasoning, Dr Nolan’s Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, 1815,
pp. 171, 100, 85, &e. The principal are Com. in Matth. xxiv. [v. 36], Hier. Tom.
vi. p. 54, and Cat. Script. Eccl., Pamphilus, Tom, I. p. 128.

3 To the words quoted, p. 261, note 2, Augustine immediately adds: “Unde,
si quispiam veteri falsitati contensiosius faverit, prolatis collatisque codicibus, vel
docetur facillimd, vel refellitur.”

NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES,

a. CODEX VERCELLENSIS
(Mare. ii. 1—5),

(1) Et cum introisset ite-
rum in Capharnaum post
dies, cognitum est quod in
domo esset; (2) et protinus
convenerunt multi, in tan-
tum ut jam non posset capere
usque ad januam, et loque-
batur illis verbum. (3) Et
veniunt ad eum, adferentes
paralyticum, qui tollebatur
a quatuor. (4) Et cum non
possent accedere propter tur-
bam, ascendentes, denudave-
runt tectum, ubi erat Jesus;
et dimiserunt grabattum ubi
paralyticus decumbebat. (5)
Cum vidisset autem Jesus
fidem illorum, ait paralytico,
Fili, remittuntur tibi peccata
tua,

e. CopEX PALATINUS.

(1) Et venit iterum in
capharnaum post dies’ et au-
ditum est quoniam domi est
(2) et continuo collecti sunt
multi ita ut nd caperet do-
mus et loquebatur illis ver-
bum. (3) Et venerunt ad
illum portantes in grabatto
paralyticum (4) et cum non
possent accedere prae Turbam
denudaverunt tectum ubi erat
ihs et summiserunt grabat-
tum in quo paralyticus jace-
bat’ (5) et cum vidisset ihs
fidem illorum dixit paralytico
fili remitttitur tibi peccata,

N.B. The Clementine Vulgate reads v. 3, ad eum ferentes,
v. 5, tibi peccata tua.

vidisset.

ὃ. CoDEX VERONENSIS.

(tr) Et iterum benit Ca-
pharnaum post dies: et au-
ditum est quod in domo esset ;
(2) et convenerunt multi, ita
ut jam nec ad januam cape-
ret, et loquebatur ad eos ver-
bum. (3) Et veniunt ad il-
lum, ferentes paralyticum in
grabatto. (4) Et, cum acce-
dere non possent prae multi-
detexerunt tectum,
et summiserunt

tudine,
ubi erat;
grabbatum, in quo paralyti-
cus jacebat. (5) Cum vidis-
set autem Jesus fidem illo-
rum, ait paralytico: Fili, re-
missa sunt tibi peccata,

f. CopEx BRIXIENSIS.

(1) Et iterum intravit Ca-
pharnaum post dies’ et audi-
tum est quod in domo esset.
(2) et confestim convenerunt
multi. ita ut non caperet us-
que ad januam. et loquebatur
eis verbum. (3) Et venerunt
ad eum portantes in grabato
paralyticum inter quatuor.
(4) Et cum offerre eum non
possent prae turba, nudave-
runt tectum ubi erat jesus.
et patefacientes. submiserunt
grabatum. in quo paralyticus
jacebat. (5) Cum vidisset au-
tem Jesus fidem illorum. ait
paralytico Fili dimissa sunt
tibi peccata tua.

267

c. CopEX COLBERTINUS,

(1) Et cum venisset Ca-
pharnaum post dies, auditum
est quod in domo esset, (2)
et confestim convenerunt ad
eum multi, ita ut non caperet
eos introitus januae, et loque-
batur ad eos verbum. (3)
Venerunt autem ad eum por-
tantes in lecto paralyticum,
(4) Et cum non possent ac-
cedere prae turba, denuda-
verunt tecta ubi erat Jesus:
et summiserunt grabatum in
quo paralyticus jacebat. (5)
Cum vidisset autem Jesus
fidem illorum, ait paralytico,
Fili remittuntur tibi peccata
tuae

CoDEX AMIATINUS
(Vulg.)

(1) Et iterum intravit Ca-
pharnaum post dies; et audi-
tum est quod in domo esset,
(2) et convenerunt multi, ita
ut non caperet neque ad ja-
nuam, et loquebatur eis ver-
bum. (3) Et venerunt feren-
tes ad eum paralyticum qui
a quattuor portabatur. (4)
Et cum non possent offerre
eum illi prae turba, nudave-
runt tectum ubi erat, et pate-
facientes summiserunt gra-
batum in quo paralyticus
jacebat. (5) Cum _ vidisset
autem Jesus fidem illorum,
ait paralytico Filii [Jege ἘΠῚ
cum editis] dimittuntur tibi
peccata,

am,

v. 5, autem

268

ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE

The criticism of the text would lead us to much the same
conclusion. In v. 1 f am. read πάλιν εἰσῆλθεν, b (apparently)
πάλιν ἦλθεν, c ἐλθὼν (omitting πάλιν), 6 ἦλθε πάλιν, a εἰσελ-
θὼν πάλιν: in v. 3 αἰρόμενον ὑπὸ τεσσάρων is read only in
af am, and that with some variation: cef insert ἐν κραβάτῳ
(-rr@ 6) before παραλυτικόν, ὦ after it; in @ am. it is quite
absent: in v. 5 oo ai ἁμαρτίαι σου is given fully in aef,
and the Clementine Vulgate, cov is omitted in the other

three.
careful reader.

Other instances will readily present themselves to a.

We will now transcribe John vii. 53—viii. 11 from ce am,

with the variations of for. in the last.
omitted in.af, and has been erased from ὦ.

c. CopEx COLBERTINUS.

(53) Et reversi sunt unus-
quisque in domum suam.
(viii. 1) Jesus autem ascendit
in montem oliveti. (2) Et
mane cum factum esset, ite-
rum venit in templo, et uni-
versus populus conveniebat
ad eum, et cum consedisset,
docebat eos. (3) Scribae au-
tem et Pharisaei adduxerunt
ad eum mulierem in adulterio
deprehensam, quam cum sta-
tuissent in medio (4) dix-
erunt ad Jesum Magister
haec mulier deprehensa est
in adulterio. (5) In lege au-
tem praecepit nobis Moyses,
ut qui in adulterio depreben-
ditur, lapidetur. Tu autem
quid dicis de ei? (6) Haec
ideo dicebant tentantes eum,
ut haberent causam accu-
sandi eum. Jesus autem, in-
clinato capite, digito scribe-
bat in terré (7) Cum autem
perseverarent interrogantes
eum, erexit se, et dicit eis:
Qui sine peceato est vestrum,
primus in illam lapidem ja-
ciat. (8) Et iterum se ineli-
nans, scribebat in terra. (9)

e. CODEX PALATINUS.

(53) Et abierunt singuli
ad domos suas. (viii.1) Ihs
autem abiit in montem oli-
veti. (2) deluculo autem re-
versus est in templo et omnis
plebs veniebat ad eum et
sedens docebat eos. (3) et ad-
duxerunt autem scribae et
farisaei mulierem in adulterio
depraehensam* et cum sta-
tuissent eam in medio (4)
dixerunt Illi magister haec
mulier deprachensa est sponte
maecata. (5) in lege auté
nobis moyses mandavit hu-
jusmodi lapidare tu ergo quid
dicis. (6) hoc enim dicebant
temptantes eum ut haberent
quo modo eum accusarent,
Ihs autem inclinato capite
digito supra terram scribebat
(7) cum ergo perseverarent
interrogantes eum adiebavit
capud et dixit illis’ si quis
vestrum sine peccato est ipse
prior super illa iniciat lapi-
dem. (8) Et iterum inclinato
capite supra terram scribebat.
(9) Illi autem cum audissent
unus post unum exiebant,
incipientes a senioribus et

The passage is wholly

am. for, Copp. AMIAT,
FOROJULIENSIS.

(53) Et reversi sunt unus-
quisque in domum suam’
(viii. 1) Jesus autem perrexit
in montem oliveti: (2) et di-
luculo iterum venit in tem-
plum, et omnis populus venit
ad eum, et sedens docebat
eos. (3) Adducunt autem
scribae et Pharisaei mulierem
in adulterio deprehensam et
statuerunt eam in medio (4)
et dixerunt ei Magister, haec
mulier modo deprehensa est
in adulterio. (5) In lege au-
tem Moses (Moyses for.)
mandavit nobis hujusmodi
lapidare: tu ergo quid dicis?
(6) Haec autem dicebant tem-
tantes (temptantes for.) eum,
ut possent accusare eum,
Jesus autem inclinans se de-
orsum digito scribebat in
terra. (7) Cum autem per-
severarent interrogantes eum,
erexit se et dixit eis, Qui
sine peccato est vestrum,
primus in illam lapidem mit-
tat. (8) Et iterum se incli-
nans scribebat in terra. (0)
Audientes autem unus post
unum exiebant, incipientes

NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES.

Tili igitur cum audissent,
paulatim secedebant singuli,
incipientes a senioribus om-
nes recesserunt: et relictus
est solus: et ecce mulier illa
in medio erat stans. (10)
Cumque se erexisset Jesus,
dixit ad mulierem: Ubisunt?
nemo te condemnavit? (11)
Quae dixit, Nemo Domine.
Dixit autem illi Jesus: Nec
ego te condemnabo: Vade,
et ex hoc jam noli peccare.

relictus est ihs solus et muLier
in medio. (10) Cum adlevas-
set autem capud ihs dixit ei.
mulier ubi sunt nemo te ju-
dicavit. (11) Dixit et illa
nemo dne. dixit autem ihs
ad illam nec ego te judico.

i et amplius noli peccare.

269

(incipiens A m. p. m.)a seniori-
bus, et remansit solus et mulier
in medio stans. (10) Erigens
autem se Jesus dixit ei Mu-
lier, ubi sunt? (+ qui te ac-
cusant? for.) nemo te con-
demnavit? (11) Quae dixit
Nemo domine. Dixit autem
Jesus (— Dixit autem Jesus
for.) Nec ego te condemnabo :
vade et amplius jam _noli
peccare.

N.B. The Clementine
Vulgate reads v. 7, ergo (pro
autem) ; v. 9, exibant;+Jesus
(post solus); v, 10, ubi sunt
qui te accusabant; Ὁ. 11 jam
amplius!.

1 It will easily appear from the foregoing statements that much requires to be
done before the subject of the Latin versions, their origin, genius and mutual
relations, can be said to be exhausted. The Rev. Henry Craik of Bristol, in his
scholarlike and useful little treatise on Zhe Hebrew Language, 1860, classifies the
several heads of such an investigation in the following

Prospectus of a Monograph on the Vulgate.

CHAP.

I. Origin and History of the Vulgate.
II. General Characteristics of that Ancient Version.

Codex Amiatinus.

Past and Present condition of its Text, with particular reference to the

Leading instances in which the Vulgate has preserved readings which the

labours of recent critics have proved to be genuine, as being possessed of
higher critical authority than the corresponding readings of the received
Greek Text, from which, for the most part, our own Translation was

derived.

V. Leading Instances of erroneous renderings referrible to the fact of the
Translator having mistaken the meaning of the Original.

. Leading instances in which the Vulgate misrepresents the meaning of the

inspired writer, through having followed an erroneous Hebrew or Greek

Text.

A. On the Latinity of the Vu

APPENDIX.

the phraseology of the Classic Writers.

B. Review of the effects on the Medieval Theology resulting out of the use
of the Vulgate Version, during the dark ages, and reflex effects of the
Medieval Theology on the mode of interpreting the Vulgate.

C. Terms and phraseology, derived from the Vulgate, still retained in modern
English, and influence of that Version on certain modes of expression
current among Protestant Theologians.

Craik, Hebrew Language, pp. 121—2.

. Influence of the LX X. upon the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament.
* * * *

Igate, and its more remarkable deviations from

270 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE

Of the remaining versions the Persic, Arabic, and one or
two others, are of almost no service to the critic; and those
who do not understand the languages in which the remainder
are written, cannot be too careful in applying their alleged
evidence to the revision of the text, except in the case of
their testifying to the addition or omission of whole sentences,
or smaller clauses, and sometimes of single words. A brief
description will suffice even for the most important among
them, the rather as all our information has been obtained at
second hand.

5. Tue EGypriaAN VERSIONS.

The term Coptic (derived from Coptos a town in Upper
Egypt) is popularly applied to that modification of the ancient
Egyptian language which sprung from its mixture with the
Greek, under the influence of its sovereigns of the Macedo-
nian dynasty, and of the foreign colony at Alexandria. The
only surviving memorials of the Coptic (now displaced by
Arabic as the vernacular tongue) are the sacred books yet
used in their public worship by the handful of Egyptian
Christians, a poor, despised, and oppressed people, that yet
survive the tyranny of the infidels. In the early centuries
of our aera two (some have thought three) dialects seem to
have been in general use, that of lower Egypt, styled from
the great native capital, the Memphitic; and that of Upper
Egypt, now called the Thebatc, from the chief city in that
region, but formerly (with less strict propriety) the Sahidic,
from the Arabic name for that part of the country. So far
as we understand the main point of difference between the
two dialects, it consists in the Thebaic, as that of the more re-
mote province, being less corrupted from the Greek than the
Memphitic. At what period the Holy Scriptures were first
translated into either of them, or how far they have come
down to us without material alteration, are points on which
no definite information has yet been obtained. We have
fragments of the Thebaic version in Cod. T of the Greek
Gospels (see p. 116) that have been assigned to the fourth
and are not later than the fifth century. Eusebius (//ist.

’

Eccles. Lib. vit. Cap. 9) was an eyewitness to the terrible

NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. Fait

sufferings of the Christians in the Thebaid throughout Dio-
cletian’s persecution (A.D. 303—313); when “not for a few
days, but during a space of years” (ἐπὶ μακρὸν ὅλων ἐτῶν
διάστημα) ten, twenty, even a hundred of all ages were mar-
tyred at once. Ifa few of them (as Phileas, Bishop of Thmui,
and Philoromus) were wise and noble, the mass were evi-
dently of lowly rank; and it seems unreasonable to doubt
that for these faithful souls a native version of Holy Scrip-
ture would have been made before the end of the third cen-
tury'. In the lower province, where Greek was more gene-
rally known, the Memphitic might date perhaps somewhat
later; though even more than a century after Constantine (A. Ὁ.
451), Calosirius, the native Bishop of a city then bearing a
Greek name (Arsinoe), subscribed the Acts of the Council of
Chalcedon through an interpreter; and Pachomius (about A.D.
350) drew up in Coptic the rules for the Egyptian monks.
Beyond this point history or plausible conjecture will not carry
us.

(1). THe Mempuitic VERSION (Cop. or Memph.).

Although this version (πού the Thebaic) seems to be that
exclusively used in the Public Services of the Copts, it was not
known in Europe till Dr Th. Marshall, Rector of Lincoln Col-
lege (1672—85), contributed to Bp. Fell’s Oxford N. T. of 1675
many readings collected from eight Coptic manuscripts in his
possession, but now in the Bodleian. Marshall was hindered
by death from completing his projected edition of the Gospels.
Mill (N. 7. Proleg. § 1406, 1462), however, not only used
his papers, but a collation he procured from Louis Piques of
three other copies at Paris (ἰδία. ὃ 1508). In 1716 David
Wilkins, a Prussian, published at Oxford his “N. 7. dgyp-

1 That some of the native Christians could speak no language but their own,
besides the high probability of the fact itself, appears from a passage in one of
Zoega’s Coptic manuscripts to which attention was called by Hug (/ntroduction,
Vol. 11. p. 408, Wait’s translation). The Roman Prefect is travelling through
Upper Egypt in search of Christians, when one presents himself of his own accord :
‘“deinceps praeses ex tribunali per interpretem cum eo collocutus cum ei ut sacri-
ficaret persuadere non potuisset, sententiam his verbis pertulit; Isaac Tiphrenus
nomi Panan, quoniam mori vult pro nomine Jesu, jubeo ut caput ejus gladio reci-
datur” (Zoega, Cat. Codd. Memph. τι. XIX. pp. 20, 21),

272 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE

tiacum vulgo Copticum” from the Bodleian manuscripts com-
pared with others at Paris and the Vatican; but Coptic
scholars are agreed in pronouncing him most imperfectly ac-
quainted with the language, and his accompanying Latin
translation quite untrustworthy. Although portions of the
Memphitic Old Testament (especially the Psalter) have been
several times printed, we were long dependent on Wilkins
for what was known of the New: but in 1846—7, M. G.
Schwartze, a very competent critic, put forth the Gospels
(Quatuor Evangelia in Dialecto linguae Copticae Memphitica)
with a text revised by the aid of six modern codices (tran-
scribed by Petraeus in 1622 from copies of the tenth century
and later) at Berlin, and placed at the foot of each page a
collation of his Memphitic readings with the Greek Testaments
of Tischendorf (1841) and Lachmann (1842). On Schwartze’s
death the work was continued by P. Boetticher (Acta Aposto-
lorum, Epp. 1851—2), in such a shape as to be useless to those
who do not study Coptic, and utterly unsatisfactory to those
who do. So much remains to be done for the Memphitic that
Mill’s readings cannot yet be regarded as obsolete.

(2). Tue Tuesatc Version (Sah. or Theb.),

though but a collection of fragments, is considered more an-
cient and has fallen into far more skilful hands: the codices
too are much more venerable in respect of age [v, vi]. C. G.
Woide, the editor of Cod. A (see p. 83), projected an edition
of this version, which he did not live to execute, but his
papers, published by Ford in the Appendix to the Codex
Alexandrinus 1799, exhibit the fullest collection of materials
from all parts of the N. T. Mingarelli, gyptiorum Codicum
reliquiae, Venetiis in Bibliothecd Nanian@ asservatae (Bono-
niae, Fase. 1. 11. 1785; Fase. 111. 1790); Georgi in his edition of
Cod. T, 1789 (see p. 116); F. Miinter, Commentatio de Indole
Versionis N. T. Sahidicae (Hafniae 1789), each contributed
further portions, sometimes citing readings from passages as yet
unprinted, while G. Zoega, in his work cited above (pp. 116, 271,
note), has indicated sources from which more might be drawn:

NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 273

Sehwartze made use of all within his reach for the illustra-
tion of the Memphitic Gospels?.

(3). THe Basmuric FRAGMENTS

Were published by W. F. Engelbreth, Fragmenta Basmuro-
Coptica V. et N. Test. (Havniae, 1811), with facsimiles, from
a very old manuscript in the Borgian Museum at Velitrae.
Miinter and Giorgi had previously edited portions, as also had
Zoega in his Catalogue a year before (see p. 116). Besides small
fragments of the Old Testament, there are the following parts
of the New: John iv. 28—34; 86—40; 43—53; 1 Cor. vi.
19—ix. 16; xiv. 33—xv. 35; Eph. vi. 18—Phil. 11. 2; 1 Thess.
i, 1—iti. 6; Hebr. v. 5—x. 22. This version is manifestly
based on the Thebaic, from which it differs in but a few
dialectic peculiarities, and has therefore no great weight ex-
cept in places where the Thebaic is lost. It has its name
of Basmuric from the circumstance that the third dialect of
the Egyptian was so termed by the Arabs, the other two
being the Sahidic or Thebaic and the Bahiric or Memphitic.

1 Exclusively of a few portions of the Old Testament, the following fragments
of the Thebaic have been published by one or other of the above-named critics:
Matth i. 1—iv. 11; v. 14—20; 25; 26; vi.5—15; 19—26; vii. 7—29; viii. 1---
ΤΟ 145 20; 41; Xi. τῇ; 285 305 Xiil. Ὁ» XVI. 20—205 XVII. I—xxI. 15; xxii. 6
—xxili. 10; xxiv. 43 5; 15: 223 303 43; xxv. 34—xxvil. 45; Mark ix. 2—8;
xi, I—10; 29—xv. 32; xvi. 20; Luke iv. 1—13; viii. 36—56; ix. 1—41; xi. 5
—13; xii. 5—59; xiii. 1—35; xiv. I—II; xv. I—10; II—32; xvie 16—25 ; xviii.
9Q—14; xxii. g—xxiv. 40; John iv. 5—30; v. I—3; 5—14; vi. 15—58; 68—viil.
313 40—59; ix. I—xili. 1; xvii. 6—26; xviii. 1; 2; 6—9; 15—40; xix. r—xx.
30; Acts i, I—xxiv. 193 24; 25; xxvii. 27—38; James i. 2; 12; 26; 27; ii. r—
4; 8—23; lil. 3—6; iv. 11—17; v. 7—20; 1 Pet. 1. 3; 13—21; li. 73 9; 133 19
-- 28; ili, 8; 15; 22; iv. I; 7—14; 2 Pet. i. 1-2 0; ii, I—3; 12—22; ili. 1—18;
1 John 1—10; ii. 1—v. 21; 2 John—Jude 20; Rom. i. 25; vi. 12—19; vil. 2I—
—25; vill, I—I5; x. 1421; xi. I—I13 xiii. 7—14; xiv. I—4; 17—23; 1 Cor.
i, 303 li. I—11; ili. 10—21; ix. I—xii. 9; 12; xiii. 13; xiv. I—4; 8—17; 27;
28; 2 Cor. vi. I—10; x. 5; xii. g—21; xiii. 1; Gal. iv. 19; 21—31; v. 1; 22—
26; vi. r—16; Eph. i. 18; iv.g; 10; 17—32; v. I—5; Col. 111, s—17; 1 Thess.
iv. 16; 1 Tim. i. 14—20; ii, 1—15; iii. r—16; v. 21—25; vi. t—21; 2 Tim. i.
1—16; ii. 1926; iii. 5; Hebr. ii. τα; 16—18; iii, 1—21; xi. 11—22; xii, I—
9; 18—27; Apoc. i. 8; iii, 7; xx. 4. These very slight reliques of the Apoca-
lypse in the Thebaic are the more interesting, since doubts have been cast on the
antiquity of the Memphitic version of it as edited by Wilkins. Mill (NV. 7. Proleg.
§ 1406) states that none of the Bodleian manuscripts contain that book, though
one in the Vatican is said to do 50,

274 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE

Some have referred the use of this version to the East of the
Delta (Bashmur), but its affinity with the Thebaic is far closer
than with the Memphitic, so that Giorgi, Munter, &c. have
fixed on the Oasis of Ammon as its most probable country
(vid. Engelbreth, Proleg. § 3).

There seems no cause for doubting that the Thebaic and
Memphitic are independent versions, both made from the Greek,
the latter being composed in the more polished and correct
style. Yet the superior antiquity of the manuscripts of the
Thebaic, and its consequent exemption from the chance of
later alterations, bestow on it, so far as it is extant, the higher
critical value.

6. THe Gornic Version (Goth.).

The history of the Goths, who from the wilds of Scandinavia
overran the fairest regions of Europe, has been traced by the
master-hand of Gibbon (Decline and Fall, Chapters X. XXVI.
Xxx1., &e.), and need not here be repeated. While the nation
was yet seated in Moesia, Ulphilas or Wulfilas [818—888],
a Cappadocian, who succeeded their first Bishop Theophilus in
A.D. 348, though himself an Arian and a teacher of that subtle
heresy to his adopted countrymen, became their benefactor, by
translating both the Old! and New Testament into the Gothic,
a dialect of the great Teutonic stock of languages, having
previously invented or adapted an alphabet expressly for their
use. There can be no question, from internal evidence, that the
Old Testament was rendered from the Septuagint, the New
from the Greek original: but the existing manuscripts testify
to some corruption from Latin sources, very naturally arising
during the occupation of Italy by the Goths in the fifth century.
‘These venerable documents are principally three.

(1) Copex ArGEntTEus, the mcst precious treasure of the
University of Upsal, in the mother-country of the Gothic
tribes. It appears to be the same copy as Ant. Morillon saw
at Werden in Westphalia towards the end of the sixteenth
century, and was taken by the Swedes at the siege of Prague

' “Put he prudently suppressed the four books of Kings, as they might tend
to irritate the fierce and sanguinary spirit of the barbarians,” Gibbon, chap. xxxvii.

NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 275

in 1648. Queen Christina gave it to her librarian, Isaac Vossius,
and from him it was very rightly purchased about 1662 by
the Swedish nation and deposited at Upsal. This superb codex
contains fragments of the Gospels (in the Latin order, Matthew,
John, Luke, Mark, see p. 62) on 188 leaves 4to (out of about
320) of purple vellum, the bold, uncial, Gothic letters being
in silver, sometimes in gold, of course much faded, and so
regular that some have imagined, though erroneously, that they
were impressed with a stamp (see p. 111). The date assigned
to it is the fifth or early in the sixth century, although the seve-
ral words are divided, and some various readings stand in the
margin primé manu. (2) CopEX CAROLINUS, described above
for Codd. PQ (p. 113) and for the Old Latin gue (p. 258), con-
tains in Gothic about forty verses of the Epistle to the Romans,
first published by Knittel, 1762. (3) Palimpsest fragments of
five codices, apparently like Cod. Carolinus, from Bobbio, and of
about the same date, discovered by Mai in 1817 in the Am-
brosian Library at Milan, and published by him and Count
C. O. Castiglione (‘ Ulphilae Partium Ineditarum...Specimen,”
Milan, 1819). The manuscripts are minutely described and
illustrated by a rude facsimile in Horne’s Introduction, and after
him in Tregelles’ Horne, Vol. tv. pp. 804—7. Unlike the Codex
Argenteus (at least if we trust Dr E. 1), Clarke’s facsimile of
the latter) the words in Mai’s palimpsests are continuous: they
contain parts of Esther, Nehemiah (apparently no portion of
the books of Avngs), a few passages of the Gospels, and much
of St Paul. H. F. Massmann (“U/jlas,” Stuttgart, 1855) also
added from an exposition a few verses of St John.

These fragments (for such they still must be called)’, in
spite of the influence of the Latin, approach nearer the received
text, in respect of their readings, than the Egyptian or one or

1 Matth. iii. ἦτ; v. 8; 15—vi. 32; vil. 12—x. 1; 23—xi. 25; xxv. 38—xxvi.
3; 6s—xxvii. 19; 42—63; Mark. i. 1—xii. 38; xiii. 16—29; xiv. 4—16; 41—
xvi. 12; Luke i. 1—x. 30; xiv. 9Q—xvi. 24; xvii. 3—xx. 46; Johni. 29; ili. 3—
32; v. 21—23; 35—38; 45—xil. 49; xiii, r1—xix. 13; Rom. vi. 23; vii. 1—
Vili. 10; 34—-xiv. 20; xv. 3- 13; xvi. 21—24; 1 Cor. i. 12—25; iv. 2—12; V. 3
—vi. 1; vii. 5—28; viii. g—ix. 9; 19—x. 43; 15—xi, 6; 21—31; xii, το---22;
xiii, I—12; xiv. 2o—Gal. i. 7; 20—iii. 6; 27—-Eph. v. 11; 17—29; vi. 8—24;
Phil. i, 14—ii, 8; 22—iv. 17; Col. i. 6—29; 11. 11—iv. 19; 1 Thess. ii. 10—2
Thess. ii. 4; 15—1 Tim. vi. 16; 2 Tim. i. 1—iv. 16; Tit. i, 1—ii. τ; Philem. 11
—23, but no portion of the Acts, Hebrews, Catholic Epistles, or Apocalypse.

18—2

270 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE

two other versions of about the same age; and from their simi-
liarity in language to the German, have been much studied
in that country. The fullest and best edition of the whole
collected is by H. C. de Gabelentz and T. Loebe (Ulfilas. Vet.
et N. Testamenti versionis Gothicae fragmenta quae supersunt,”
Leipsic, 1843), and of the Codex Argenteus singly that of And.
Uppstrém (with a good facsimile), Upsal, 1854. This scholar
published separately in 1857 ten leaves of the manuscript
which had been stolen between 1821 and 1834, and were
restored through him by the penitent thief on his death-bed.
The Gothic Gospels, however, had been cited as early as 1675
in Fell’s N. 7., and more fully in Mill’s, through Francis Junius’
edition (with Marshall’s critical notes), printed at Dort in 1665,
from Derrer’s accurate transcript of the Upsal manuscript,
made in or about 1655, when it was in Isaac Vossius’ posses-
sion. Other editions of the Codex Argenteus were published
by G. Stiernhielm in 1671: by E. Lye at the Clarendon Press
in 1750 from the revision of Eric Benzel, Archbishop of Upsal:
and (with the addition of the fragments in the Codex Carolinus)
by Jo. Ihre in 1763, and by J. C. Zahn in 1805.

7. Tue ARMENIAN VERSION (Arm.).

If the Gothic dates from the fourth century, the Armenian
seems to belong to the fifth. Earlier it could not be, as Miesrob,
who actually invented an alphabet for his nation, which had
previously used the Syriac characters and the Peshito version,
was enabled to undertake a vernacular translation direct from
the Greek, only by the aid of manuscripts brought from the
Council of Ephesus (A. p. 431) by Joseph and Eznak (“Johannes
Ekelensis et Josephus Palnensis,’ as Tischendorf calls them),
who, together with the historian of Armenia, Moses Chorenen-
sis, were associated with Miesrob in this godly labour (Moses
Chor. Lib. 111. cap. 61). By the diligence of these men the
whole Bible was translated into their native tongue, the Old
Testament from the Septuagint, the New (as Louis Piques saw
long ago, Mill, N. T. Proleg. § 1404) direct from the Greek;
although many traces of the influence of the old Syriac yet
survive, as might be expected from the early habits of the
translators. ‘lwo circumstances detract considerably from the

NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. Dine

eritical value of this version, even to the few who can use it
‘with confidence; viz. that like the Memphitic its existing
codices are comparatively modern, and differ widely in the text
they represent; and that their very close resemblance to
the Vulgate Latin has lent countenance to a tradition, in itself
sufficiently probable, that on the submission of the Armenian
Church to that of Rome, King Haitho (1224—70) revised the
-Armenian version by the Latin: it seems to be ascertained
that he did translate into Armenian and insert into his national
Bible the Prefaces in the Vulgate which are ascribed to Jerome.
The first printed edition of the Armenian Bible is that of
‘Bishop Uscan or Oscan of Erivan, who had been sent into the
West for that purpose by a synod of Armenian prelates in
1662, under the sanction of their Patriarch (arm. usc.). After
vain attempts to obtain aid at Rome, Uscan (whether that be
a proper name or a local appellative) published his volume at
Amsterdam in 1666, from which were derived several reprints,
and the various readings furnished to Mill by Piques, and to
Wetstein by La Croze. The Jest edition is that of Zohrab,
N. 1. 1189, Biblia, 1805 (arm. zoh.), on the basis of a Cilician
codex [xIv], compared with twenty others of the N.T., and
eight of the whole Bible, printed at Venice at the expense of the
Armenian College of the monks of the island of St Lazarus.
This last edition Griesbach was enabled to use for critical pur-
poses by the help of Bredenkamp of Hamburg; Scholz, by
means of Cirbied, Armenian Professor at Paris, and the Mechi-
tarist monks at Vienna; Tregelles, through the aid of a close
comparison with the Greek text, instituted for him by Dr Charles
Rieu of the British Museum. It should be added that Zohrab
does not acknowledge any systematic corruption of the Arme-
nian from the Latin Bible, and that only one of his eighteen
copies of the Epistle contains 1 John v. 7, which had appeared
in Usean’s book. Aucher of St Lazarus informed Tischendorf
in 1843 that his Society was preparing another edition of the
Bible, from fresh and (we may trust) more ancient authorities.

8. THe ArHiopic Version (Atth.).

The AXthiopic language is akin to the Arabic and others of
the Shemitic family; it was formerly spoken in Abyssinia,

278 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE

especially in the province of Axoum (where it was called Gheez,
or “the free,” Walton, Proleg. xv.c. 10), though it has now
given place to a later dialect, the Amharic. Without resting on
the rhetorical statement of Chrysostom, that in his time the
Scriptures had been translated into the tongues of the Syrian
and Egyptian, the Indian, the Persian and /Xthiopian, and “ ten
thousand other nations’, such a version must have been much
needed shortly after the conversion of the Abyssinians by Fru-
mentius in the fourth century. Dillmann attributes it to that
age: Gildemeister, however, and other Orientalists, assign it
to the sixth or seventh century, and its surviving codices are
even more modern [Xv] than those of the Memphitic or Arme-
nian. The Old Testament (which has not yet been published
in full) was made from the Septuagint (Walt. Proleg. xv. ο. 10,
u1.), the New Testament obviously from the Greek and by
a person imperfectly acquainted with that language, though
Gildemeister, a Professor at Marburg (who collated portions
of the Aithiopic for Tischendorf’s N. 7. of 1859), remarks
that it must in that case have been largely interpolated from
Syriac or Arabic sources. In fact the version is so tautological,
confused, and unequal in.style (that of St Paul in particular
often degenerating into a paraphrase), that some have thought
our present text to be a compound of two several translations,
and even Tregelles supposes that “there was originally one
version of the Gospels, afterwards compared with Greek MSS.
of a different class; and the MSS. in general bearing proofs of
containing a text modified by such comparison; while others
contain throughout conflate readings” (‘T'regelles’ Horne, Vol.
Ivy. p. 320). It is obvious how great caution is needed in
applying this version to the criticism of the N.T. Yet this
was the earliest printed of all the Eastern versions. The
Psalms were published at Rome, 1513; the New Testament
(except the first thirteen Epistles of St Paul, which followed
the year after) at Rome, 1548, by native editors (“ Memores
estote nostrum...Tesfa-Sionis Malhesini, Tensea Waldi, et
Zaslaski,”’ as runs the subscription to St Matthew), who for

1 ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ Σύροι καὶ Αἰγύπτιοι καὶ "Ivdol καὶ Πέρσαι καὶ Αἰθίοπες καὶ μύρια
ἕτερα ἔθνη, εἰς τὴν αὐτῶν μεταβαλόντες γλῶτταν τὰ παρὰ τούτου δόγματα εἰσαχ-
θέντα, ἔμαθον βάρβαροι φιλοσοφεῖν. 11 Hom. in Johan., Opera (Montfaucon)
Tom. VIII. p. 10.

NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES, 279

want of manuscripts themselves translated Act. ix. 29—x. 32;
xxvi. 8—xxviii. 31. In Walton’s Polyglott the New Testa-
ment was reprinted with many faults, and an unusually bad
Latin translation by Dudley Loftus, from which Mill and his
successors derived their various readings. C. A. Bode pub-
lished a new or revised version of the Authiopic N.'T. given
in the Polyglott (Brunswick, 1753), and in what he good-
naturedly calls his “ Pseudo-critica Millio-Bengeliana” (Halle,
1767—9), corrects some of the errors of those great scholars.
Lastly, in 1826—30 in London, Th. Pell Platt, A.M., edited
for the British and Foreign Bible Society, “Nov. Testament...
AEthiopice, ad codicum manuscriptorum jfidem.” Respecting
these codices and their readings, at least in the Gospels,
Mr Platt gave Tregelles some loose notes, and the latter engaged
L. A. Prevost, of the British Museum, to collate Walton’s and
Platt’s texts with the Greek for the use of his N. T., as Tischen-
dorf is similarly indebted to Gildemeister. Mr Platt’s edition,
being purely of a practical character, is so unsystematic in its
employment of manuscripts as to be nearly useless to Biblical
critics.

The remaining versions may sometimes be consulted with
advantage for a special object, but for the general purposes of
critical science they are of little weight. A very short notice
will suffice for all of them.

9. THe GerorGiaAn (Georg.) or Iberian (Iber.) version of
the whole Bible, assigned to the sixth century, is written in a
language very little known, and was published at Moscow in
1743 from manuscripts said to be extensively corrupted from
the Slavonic. It is doubtful whether it was made from the
Greek or Armenian. Both Scholz and Tischendorf saw ancient
and perhaps purer codices at the monastery of the Holy Cross
at Jerusalem, which may afford us a hope of restoring this
version to something like its primitive state. J.H. Petermann
edited Philemon as a specimen (Berlin, 1844), and from F.C.
Alter’s description of its readings (Ueber Georgianische Literat.,
1798) it appears that the present text contains even such plain
interpolations as 1 John v. 7.

280 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE

10. THe SLAVONIC VERSION (Sl.), though made as late as
the ninth century, was rendered from the best Greek codices of
that age, although it would seem to have been subsequently
altered from the Latin; or (as Tischendorf thinks) from other
sources. ‘Two Greek brothers, Cyril and Methodius, converted
about A.D. 870, those tribes of the great Slavonic race that
were settled about the Danube in Moravia and its neighbour-
hood. They then proceeded to translate the Bible (or certainly
the New Testament) into Slavonic, for which barbarous tongue
Cyril (like Ulfilas and Miesrob before him) had previously
constructed an alphabet. This version was brought into Russia
on the conversion of Wladimir, its Grand Duke, in 988, in
which country it received many changes (perhaps with a view
to modernise the style) from the fourteenth century downwards.
The oldest manuscript of the whole Bible is dated 1499, and
the first printed Bible, 1581. Of the New Testament there are
many codices, of widely differing recensions, some few as old
as the tenth or eleventh century; e.g. an Hvangelistarium,
dated 1056, and the Gospels at Rheims [x], on which the
Kings of France used to take the coronation oath. These were
fully described and in part collated by J. Dobrowsky for Gries-
bach’s N. 7., 2nd ed. See also Tischendorf, .V. 7., 7th ed.
Proleg. pp. 253—5.

11. ANnGLo-SAxoNn VERSIONS (Sax.) of the New Testament
and parts of the Old (e.g. the Psalms) were numerous and
apparently independent, dating from the eighth to the eleventh
century, but can only be applied to the criticism of the Latin
Vulgate, from which they are all rendered. Manuscripts in
this language abound in English libraries (‘Tischendorf names
one in the British Museum with the interlinear Latin, which
he attributes to the eighth century), but even of the N.'T. the
Gospels alone are printed. For them Mill uses Marshall’s edition
of 1665 in parallel columns with the Gothic (see p. 276), and
Tischendorf that published by Benj. Thorpe, London, 1842.

12. A FRrAnkiso version (Fr.) of St Matthew, from a
manuscript of the ninth century at St Gall, in the Frankish
dialect of the Teutonic, was published by J. A. Schmeller in
1827. Tischendorf (Proleg. N. 7. p. 225) thinks it worthy of

NEW TESTAMENT IN VARIOUS LANGUAGES. 281

examination, but does not state whether it was translated from
the Greek or Latin: the latter is the more probable.

13. Prrstc Versions (Pers.) of the Gospels only, in
print, are two: (1) one in Walton’s Polyglott (pers’) with a
Latin version by Samuel Clarke (which C. A. Bode thought it
worth his while to reconstruct, Helmstadt, 1750—51, with a
learned Preface), obviously made from the Peshito Syriac (which
the Persians had long used) “ interprete Symone F. Joseph
Taurinensi,” and taken from a single manuscript belonging to
E. Pococke, probably dated A.D. 1341. This version may prove
of some use in restoring the text of the Peshito. (2) The
second, though apparently modern [x1v?], was made from the
Greek (pers"). It was commenced in 1652 by Abraham Whee-
locke, Professor of Arabic and Anglo-Saxon and University Li-
brarian at Cambridge, at the expense of Sir Th. Adams, the
generous and loyal alderman of London, ‘The basis (as appears
from the volume itself) was an Oxford codex (probably Laud.
A. 96 of the old notation), which Wheelocke, in his elaborate
notes at the end of each chapter, compared with Pococke’s and a
third manuscript at Cambridge (Gg. v. 26), dated 1014 of the
Hegira (A.D. 1607). On Wheelocke’s death in 1653 only 108
pages (to Matth. xviii. 6) were printed, but his whole text and
Latin version being found ready for the press, the book was
published with a second title page, dated London, 1657, and
a short Preface by an anonymous editor (said to be one Pierson),
who in lieu of Wheelocke’s notes, which break off after Matth.
Xvil, appended a simple collation of the Pococke manuscript
from that place. The Persians have older versions, parts of both
Testaments, still unpublished.

14. Arabic Versions (Arab.) are many, though of the
slightest possible critical importance: their literary history,
therefore, need not be traced with much minuteness of detail.
It is known that John, Bishop of Seville, translated the Bible
(from the Latin Vulgate, it is thought) into Arabic, a.p. 719
(Walton, Proleg. x1v. c. 18), and Tischendorf enumerates several
manuscripts brought by himself and others from the East,
assigned by competent judges to the eighth and following
centuries (N. 7. Proleg. 1859, pp. 236—9). The printed edi-

282 ON THE ANCIENT VERSIONS, &e. ἡ

tions of the New Testament portion are, (1) The Roman edition
of the Gospels, from the Medicean press, 1590—1 (ar’), edited
by J. Baptista Raymundi, some copies haying a Latin version
by Gabriel Sionita, who was engaged on the work described
below as (3) fifty years later (Mill, Proleg. § 1295). T. W.J.
Juynboll (Leyden, 1838) holds that this edition, and the text
of a Franeker codex of the Gospels, belong to the version of
John of Seville. (2) The whole N. T., from a Scaliger manu-
script, and (in the Gospels) from a second dated 988 of the
aera of the Martyrs, or A.D. 12721, edited at Leyden by Th.
Erpenius [1584—1624] in 1616 (41). (3) The N.T. of the
Paris Polyglott (ar), 1645. (4) The N. TT. in the London
Polyglott, 1657. (5) The N.T., Peshito and Arabic, in the
Carshunic character (i. e. the Arabic in Syriac letters, see p. 245),
Rome, 1703, based on a manuscript brought from Cyprus.
Editions published by the Propaganda, Biblia, Rome, 1672,
and altered from the Latin, and by our venerable Society for
Promoting Christian Knowledge, N. 7., London, 1727, and
altered from the original Greek, both designed for circulation in
the East, need not be considered.

Since the Dissertatio inaug. critica de Evan. Arab. of G. C.
Storr appeared (Tiibingen, 1775) it seems to have been acknow-
ledged that the several published editions of the Gospels have
sprung from one version, and that taken from the Greek, though
now sadly mixed and confused: Juynboll, however, has ren-
dered it probable that its original was the Latin, which was
subsequently corrected by the Greek. The Acts and Epistles
in Erpenius’ N. T. were certainly made from the Peshito ; his
Apocalypse seems to have been derived from the Memphitic:
but in both Polyglotts all except the Gospels are undoubtedly
from the Greek. <A list of Greek manuscripts attended with
Arabic versions is given above, p. 225.

1 This manuscript of the Gospels only, together with seventy others which
once belonged to Erpenius, was bought for the University of Cambridge by its
Chancellor, George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, just before his murder in 1628.
It is now in the University Library, Gg. v. 33, and in the margin of its subscription
we find ‘it anno Christi 1272” in Erpenius’ handwriting. Pr. Lee (who did not
know its history) inferred its identity with Erpenius’ codex from the subscription,
and other internal marks (Prolegomena to Bagster’s Polyglott, p. 31, note). There
is a second copy of the Gospels in the same Library, Gg. V. 27, with an inscription
by the Patriarch Cyril Lucar (see p. 79), dated 1618.

CHAPTER IV.

ON THE CITATIONS FROM THE GREEK NEW TESTA-
MENT, OR ITS VERSIONS, MADE BY EARLY EC-
CLESIASTICAL WRITERS, ESPECIALLY BY THE
CHRISTIAN FATHERS.

il, WE might at first sight be inclined to suppose that

the numerous quotations from the New Testament
contained in the remains of the Fathers of the Church and other
Christian writers from the first century of our era downwards,
would be more useful even than the early versions, for enabling
us to determine the character of the text of Scripture current
in those primitive times, from which no manuscripts of the
original have come down to us. Unquestionably the testimony
afforded by these venerable writings will be free from some
of the objections which so much diminish the value of trans-
lations for critical purposes (866 above, p. 228); but not to in-
sist on the fact that many important passages of the New Testa-
ment have not been cited at all in any very ancient work now
extant, this species of evidence will be received with increas-
ing distrust, the more familiar we become with its uncertain
and precarious nature. Not only is this kind of testimony frag-
mentary and not (like that of versions) continuous, so that it
often fails us where we should most wish for information: but
the Fathers were better theologians than critics; they frequently
quoted loosely or from memory, often no more of a passage
than their immediate purpose required; what they actually
wrote has been found peculiarly lable to change on the part of
copyists and unskilful editors; they can therefore be implicitly
trusted, even as to the manuscripts which lay before them, only
in the comparatively few places wherein their own direct appeal to

284 ON THE PATRISTIC CITATIONS FROM THE

their codices, or the course of their argument, or the current of
their exposition, renders it manifest what readings they approved.
In other cases, the same author perpetually cites the self-same
text under two or more various forms; in the Gospels it is
often impossible to determine to which of the three earlier ones
reference 15 made; and, on the whole, Scriptural quotations
from ecclesiastical writers are of so much less consideration than
ancient translations, that where they are single and unsupported,
they may safely be disregarded altogether. An express cita-
tion, however, by a really careful Father of the first four or
five centuries (as Origen, for example), if supported by manu-
script authority, and countenanced by the best versions, claims
our respectful attention, and powerfully vindicates the reading
which it favours.

2. The practice of illustrating the various readings of Scrip-
ture from the reliques of Christian antiquity is so obvious and
reasonable, that all who have written critical annotations on the
sacred text have resorted to it, from Erasmus downwards: the
Greek or Latin commentators are appealed to in four out of the
five marginal notes found in the Complutensian N.'T’. (see below,
p- 290). When Bishop Fell, however, came to prepare the first
edition of the Greek Testament attended with any considerable
apparatus for improving the text (see Chapter v.), he expressly
rejected “S. Textus loca ab antiquis Patribus aliter quam pro
recepto more laudata,” from which the toil of such a task did
not so much deter him, “ quam cogitatio quod minus utile esset
futurum iisdem insistere.” (N. 7. 1675, Praef.). ‘“ Venerandi
enim illi scriptores,” he adds, “de verborum apicibus non mul-
tum soliciti, ex memoria quae ad institutum suum factura vide-
bantur passim allegabant; unde factum ut de prisca lectione ex
illorum scriptis nil fer? certi potuerit hauriri.” It is certainly
to the credit of Mill’s sagacity that he did not follow his patron’s
example by setting aside Patristic testimony in so curt and
compendious a manner, yet I would not speak with him
(N. T. Proleg. § 1478) of Bp. Fell’s “ praepropera opinio” :
he merely stated as universally true what for the most part
certainly is so. No one can study Mill’s Prolegomena with-
out being conscious of the fact, that the portion of them re-
lating to the history of the text, as gathered from ecclesiastical
writers, and the accumulation of that mass of quotations from

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 285,

the Fathers which stands below his Scripture text, must have
been, what he asserts, the result of some years’ labour (N. 7.
Proleg. § 1513): yet these are just the parts of his celebrated
work that have given the least satisfaction. The field indeed is
too vast to be occupied by one man, or by many men, within the
space of a few years. A whole library of authors has to be
thoroughly searched; each cited passage must be patiently ex-
amined; the fallacious help of ¢ndices should be renounced ;
the text of the very writers is to be corrected, so far as may be,
by the collation of better manuscripts than the printed editions
are usually based upon; and all this with the knowledge that
codices of the Fathers are for the most part of much lower
date than those of Scripture which we desire to amend by their
aid; not many are older than the tenth century, the far greater
part are considerably more modern.

3. To Griesbach must be assigned the merit of being the
earliest editor of the Greek Testament who saw, or at least who
acted upon the principle, that it is far more profitable as well
as more scholarlike to do one thing well, than to attempt more
than can be performed completely and with accuracy. He was
led by certain textual theories he had adopted (which we shall
best describe hereafter: see Chapter v.) to a close examination
of the works of Origen, the most celebrated Biblical critic of
antiquity. The result, published in the second volume of his_
Symbolae Criticae, is a lasting monument both of his industry
and acuteness; and, if not quite faultless in point of correct-
ness, deserves to be taken as a model by his successors.
What Griesbach has done for Origen, has hitherto not been
imitated by others for writers of little less importance, such as
Clement of Alexandria, or Eusebius, Athanasius or the Cyrils;
and until that be accomplished, we cannot use the citations
derived from their works with any high degree of confidence.
Tregelles, of whose Greek Testament we shall presently speak
(Chapter v.), has evidently bestowed much pains on his Patristic
citations ; they are at once more definite, more numerous, and
yet more select than those of his predecessors; to Eusebius of
Caesarea, especially to those portions of his works which have
been recently edited or brought to light, he has paid great
attention: Chrysostom, however, has been grievously neglected,
although the subjects of a large portion of his writings, the

280 ON THE PATRISTIC CITATIONS FROM THE

early date of some of his codices!, the extensive collations
of Matthaei, and the excellent modern editions of most of his
Homilies, might have sufficed to commend him to our particular
regard. The custom, commenced by Lachmann, and adopted
by Tregelles (though not as yet uniformly by Tischendorf), of
recording the exact edition, volume, and page of the writer
quoted, and in important cases of copying his very words, cannot
be too much praised: we would suggest, however, the expediency
of further indicating by an asterisk or some such mark, those
passages about which there can be no ambiguity as to the read-
ing adopted by the author, in order to distinguish them from
others which are of infinitely less weight and importance.

4, It may be convenient to subjoin an alphabetical list
of the ecclesiastical writers, both Greek and Latin (with the
usual abridgements for their names), which are the most often
cited in, critical editions of the New Testament. The Latin
authors are printed in italics, and unless they happen to appeal
unequivocally to the evidence of Greek codices, are available
only for the correction of their vernacular translation. ‘The
dates annexed chiefly indicate the death of persons they refer
to. Fuller details are given by Tischendorf, Proleg. N. Ἵ.
pp- 257—69, 7th edition.

Ambrose Bp. of Milan, A.D. 397 (Ambr.) | Barnabas, ist or 2nd century? (Barn.)
Ambrosiaster (the false Ambrose, per- | Basil Bp. of Caesarea, 379 (Bas.)

haps Hilary the Deacon)—fl. 384% | Basil of Seleucia, fl. 440 (Bas. Sel.)

(Ambrst.) | Bede the Venerable, d. 735 (Bede).
Ammonius of Alexandria, 220 (Am- | Caesarius of Constantinople, 368 (Caes.)

mon.) Canons Apostolic, 3rd century (Canon,)
Andreas of Crete, 7th century (probably | Cassiodorus, 575 (Cassiod.)

not the same person as) Chromatius Bp. of Aquileia, 402
Andreas Bishop of Caesarea, 6th cen- (Chrom.)

tury? (And.) Chrysostom Bp. of Constantinople, 407
Arethas Bp of Caesarea Capp., 1oth cen- (Chrys.)

tury ? (Areth.) Clement Bp. of Alexandria, fl, 194
Arnobius of Africa, 306 (Arnob.) (Clem.)
Athanasius Bp. of Alexandria, 373 | Clement Bp. of Rome, fl. 90 (Clem.

(Ath.) Rom.)
Athenagoras of Athens, 177 (Athen.) Constitutiones Apostolicae, 3rd century
Augustine Bp. of Hippo, 430 (Aug.) (Constit.)

1 Tischendorf (NV. 7’. Proleg. p. 256, 7th edition) speaks of one Wolfenbiittel
manuscript containing the homilies on St Matthew of the sixth century, which he
is to publish in his Monum. sacra, Tom. Υ,

GREEK NEW

Cosmas Indicopleustes, 535 (Cosm.)

Cyprian Bp. of Carthage, 258 (Cypr.)

Cyril Bp. of Alexandria, 444 (Cyr.)

Cyril Bp. of Jerusalem, 386 (Cyr. Jer.)

Damascenus John, 730 (Damasc.)

Didymus of Alexandria, 370 (Did.)

Dionysius Bp. of Alexandria,
(Dion.)

Dionysius (Pseudo-) Areopagita, 5th
century (Dion. Areop.)

Ephraem the Syrian, 378 (Ephr.)

Epiphanius Bp. of Cyprus, 403 (Epiph.)

Eusebius Bp. of Caesarea, 340 (Eus.)

Euthalius Bp. of Sulci? 458 (Euthal.)

Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116 (Euthym.)

Evagrius of Pontus, 380 (Evagr.)

Gregory the Great Bp. of Rome, 605
(Greg.)

Gregory Bp. of Nazianzus, 389 (Naz.)

Gregory Bp. of Nyssa, 371 (Nyss.)

Gregory Thaumaturgus Bp. of Neocae-
sarea, 243 (Thauma.)

Hieronymus (Jerome), 430 (Hier.) or
(Jer.)

Hilary Bp. of Poictiers, fl. 354 (Hil.)

Hippolytus Bp. of Portus, fl. 220 (Hip.)

Ignatius Bp. of Antioch, τοῦ (Ign.)

Irenaeus Bp. of Lyons, 178; chiefly
extant in an old Latin version (Iren.)

Isidore of Pelusium, 412 (Isid.)

Justin Martyr, 164 (Just.)

Juvencus, 330 (Juv.)

Lactantius, 306 (Lact.)

Lucifer Bp. of Cagliari, 367 (Luc.)

Marcion the heretic, 130? (Mcion), cited
by Epiphanius (Mcion-e) and Tertul-
lian (Mcion-t).

265

TESTAMENT. 287

Maximus Taurinensis, 466 (Max. Taur.)

Maximus the Confessor, 662 (Max.
Conf.)

Methodius, fl. 300 (Meth.)

Oecumenius Bishop of Tricca, roth cen-
tury ? (Oecu.)

Origen, b. 185, d. 254 (Or.)

Pamphilus the Martyr, 308 (Pamph.)

Peter Bp. of Alexandria, 311 (Petr.)

Photius Bp. of Constantinople, 891
(Phot.)

Polycarp Bp. of Smyrna, 166 (Polyc.)

Primasius Bp, of Adrumetum, ἢ, 550
(Prim.)

Prudentius 406 (Prud.)

Rufinus of Aquileia, 397 (Ruf.)

Severianus, a Syrian Bp., 409 (Sevrn.)

Socrates ) Church fl. 440 (Soc.)

Sozomen Historians, | 450 (Soz.)

Suidas the lexicographer, 980 ἢ. (Suid.)

Tatian of Antioch, 172 (Tat.)

Tertullian of Africa, fl. 200 (Tert.)

Theodore Bp. of Mopsuestia, 428 (Thdor.
Mops.)

Theodoret Bp. of Cyrus or Cyrrhus in
Comagene, 458 (Thdrt.)

Theophilus Bp, of Antioch, 182 (Thph.
Ant.)

Theophylact Arch. of Bulgaria, 1071
(Theophy].)

Tichonius? the Donatist, fl. 390 (Tich.)

Titus Bp. of Bostra, fl. 370 (Tit. Bost.)

Victor of Antioch, 401 (Vict. Ant.)

Victor Bp. of Tunis, 565 (Vict. Tun.)

Victorinus Bp. of Pettau, 303 (Victorin.)

Vigilius of Thapsus, 484 (Vigil.)

CHAPTER V.

ON THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL
EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

T would be quite foreign to our present design, to attempt

to notice all the editions of the New Testament in Greek
which have appeared in the course of the last three centuries
and a half, nor would a volume suftice for such a labour. We
will limit our attention, therefore, to those early editions which
have contributed to form our commonly received text, and to
such others of more recent date as not only exhibit a revised
text, but contain an accession of fresh critical materials for its
more complete emendation.

Since the Latin Bible of 1452 was the first production of
the new-born printing-press (see p. 262), and the Jews had
published the Hebrew Bible in 1488, we must impute it to the
general ignorance of Greek among divines in Western Europe,
that although the two songs Magnificat and Benedictus (Luke 1.)
were annexed to a Greek Psalter which appeared at Venice in
1486, and the first six chapters of St John’s Gospel were pub-
lished at Venice by Aldus Manutius in 1504, and John vi, 1—
14 at Tiibingen in 1514, the first printed edition of the whole
N. T. in the original is that contained in

1. Te CompiutenstAN Potyarort’ (6 Vol. folio), the
munificent design of Francis Ximenes de Cisneros [1437—
1517] Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo, and Regent of Castile
(1506—17). This truly eminent person, six years of whose
humble youth were spent in a dungeon through the caprice of

1 Novum Testamentum Grece et Latine in academia complutensi noviter im-

pressum, Tom. Υ͂,

ON THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL EDITIONS. 289

one of his predecessors in the Primacy of Spain, experienced
what we have seen so conspicuously illustrated in our own
times, that long imprisonment ripens the intellect which it fails
to extinguish. Entering the Franciscan order in 1482, he carried
the ascetic habit of his profession to the throne of Toledo and
the palace of his sovereign. Becoming in 1492 Confessor to
Queen Isabella the Catholic, and Primate three years later, he
devoted to pure charity or to public purposes the enormous
revenues of his see; founding the University at Alcala de Hena-
res in New Castile, where he had gone to school, and defraying
the cost of an expedition which as Regent he led to Oran against
the Moors. In 1502 he conceived the plan of the first Polyglott
Bible, to celebrate the birth of him who afterwards became the
Emperor Charles V., and gathered in his University of Alcala
(Complutum) as many manuscripts as he could procure, with
men he deemed equal to the task, of whom James Lopez de
Stunica (subsequently known for his controversy with Erasmus)
was the principal; others being A. Antonio of Lebrixa, De-
metrius Ducas of Crete, and Ferdinand of Valladolid (‘“ Pin-
tianus”’). The whole outlay of Cardinal Ximenes on the Poly-
glott is stated to have exceeded 50,000 ducats or about £23,000,
a vast sum in those days:—but his yearly income as Primate
was four times as great. The first volume printed, Tom. V.,
contained the New Testament in two parallel columns, Greek
and Latin, the latter that modification of the Vulgate then cur-
rent: the colophon on the last page of the Apocalypse states
that it was completed January 10, 1514, the printer being
Arnald William de Brocario. Tom. vi., comprising a Lexicon,
indices, &c. bears date March 17, 1515; Tom. 1—1Vv. of the Old
Testament and Apocrypha, 1517, (Tom. tv., July 10), on No-
vember 8 of which year the Cardinal died, full of honours and
good deeds. This event must have retarded the publication of
the whole, since Pope Leo’s licence was not granted until March
22, 1520, and Erasmus did not see the book before 1522. As
but six hundred copies were printed, this Polyglott must from
the first have been scarce and dear, and is not always met with
in Public Libraries.

The Apocryphal books, like the N.T., are of course given
only in two languages; in the Old Testament the Latin Vul-
gate holds the chief place in the middle, between the Hebrew

200 ON THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

and the Septuagint Greek'. The Greek type in the other
volumes is of the common character, with the usual breathings
and accents; in the fifth, or New Testament volume, it is
quite different, being modelled after the fashion of manuscripts
of about the thirteenth century, very bold and elegant (see
Plate 1x. No. 37), without breathings, and accentuated accord-
ing to a system defended and explained in a bilingual preface
πρὸς τοὺς ἐντευξομένους, but never heard of before or since:
monosyllables have no accent, in other words the tone sylla-
ble receives the acute, the grave and circumflex being discarded.
The Latin is in a noble church-character, references are made
from the one text to the other by means of small letters, and
where in either column there is a void space, in consequence of
words omitted or otherwise, it is filled up by such curves as are
seen in the bottom line of our specimen. ‘The foreign matter
in this volume consists of the short Preface in Latin and Greek,
Eusebius Carpiano (but without the Canons), Jerome’s letter to
Damasus (sce pp. 252, 261), with the ordinary Latin Prologues
and Arguments before each book. St Paul’s Epistles precede
the Acts, as in Codd. &. 61. 69. 90, &e. (see p. 61), and before
them stand the ἀποδημία πταύλου, Euthalii περὶ χρόνων (see p. 57),
the ordinary ὑποθέσεις to all the 21 Epistles (grouped together),
with Theodoret’s prologues subjoined to 13 of the ὑποθέσεις. By
the side of the Latin text are numerous parallel passages, and
there are also five marginal notes (on Matth. vi. 13; 1 Cor. xiii.
3; xv. 31; 51; 1 John v. 7). The only divisions are the com-
mon Latin chapters, subdivided by the letters A, B, C, D, &e.
(see p. 59). Copies of laudatory verses’, an interpretation of Pro-
per Names, and a Greek Lexicon of the N. T. close the volume.

1 Quite enough has been made of that piece of grim Spanish humour, ‘‘ Me-
diam autem inter has latinam beati Hieronymi translationem velut inter Syna-
gogam et Orientalem Ecclesiam posuimus: tanquam duos hine et inde latrones,
medium autem Jesum, hoe est Romanam sive latinam Ecclesiam collocantes”
(Prol. Tom. 1.). The editors plainly meant no disparagement to the original Scrip-
tures, as such ; but they had persuaded themselves that Hebrew codices had been
corrupted by the Jew, the Septuagint by the schismatical Greek, and so clung to
the Latin as the only form (even before the Council of Trent) in which the Bible
was known or studied in Western Europe.

2 Of these, two copies are in Greek, three in Latin Elegiacs. I subjoin those
of the native Greek editor, Demetrius Ducas, as a rather favourable specimen
of verse composition in that age; the fantastic mode of accentuation described
above was clearly not his work.

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 291

It has long been debated among critics, what manuscripts
were used by the Complutensian editors, especially in the N. T.
Ximenes is reported to have spent 4000 ducats in the purchase
of manuscripts; in the Preface to the N.'T. we are assured that
“non quevis exemplaria impressioni huic archetypa fuisse: sed
antiquissima emendatissimaque: ac tante preterea vetustatis:
ut fidem eis abrogare nefas videatur: Que sanctissimus in
Christo pater et dominus noster Leo decimus pontifex maximus,
huic instituto favere cupiens ex apostolica bibliotheca educta
misit...’” Yet these last expressions can hardly refer to the N.T.,
inasmuch as Leo X. was not elected Pope till March 11, 1513,
and the N. T. was completed Jan. 10 of the very next year’.
Add to this that Vercellone, whose services to sacred literature
have been spoken of above (pp. 91—2) has recently brought
to light the fact that only two manuscripts are known to have
been sent to the Cardinal from the Vatican in the first year of
Leo, and neither of them (Vat. 330, 346) contained any part of
the N.T The only one of the Complutensian codices specified
by Stunica, the Cod. Rhodiensis (Act. 52, see p. 190), has
entirely disappeared, and from a Catalogue of the thirty volumes
of Biblical manuscripts once in the library at Alcala, but now
at Madrid, communicated in 1846 by Don José Gutierrez, the
Librarian, we find that they consist exclusively of Latin and

Eumpdéers ὅσιαι ἀρετῆτε βροτοὺς és ὄλυμπον,
ἐσμακάρων χῶρον καὶ βίον οἷδεν ἄγειν,

ἀρχιερεὺς ξιμένης θεῖος πέλει. ἔργα γὰρ αὐτοῦ
ἥδε βίβλος. θνητοῖς ἄξια δώρα τάδε.

1 Tregelles (Account of the Printed Text, p. 7, note) states that he was elected
Febr. 28, crowned March 11: Sir Harris Nicholas (Chronology of History, p. 194)
that he was elected March τι, without naming the date of his coronation as usual,
but mentioning that ‘Leo X, in his letters, dated the commencement of his
pontificate before his coronation.”

2 The following is the document (a curiosity in its way) as cited by Vercellone:
‘¢ Anno primo Leonis PP. X. Reverendiss. Dom. Franciscus Card. Toletanus de
mandato SS. D. N. Papae habuit ex bibliotheca a Dom. Phaedro Bibliothecario
duo volumina graeca: unum in quo continentur libri infrascripti; videlicet Pro-
verbia Salomonis, Ecclesiastes, Cant. Cant., Job, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, Esdras,
Tobias, Judith. Sunt in eo folia quingenta et duodecim ex papyro in nigro.
Fuit extractum ex blancho primo bibliothecae graecae communis. Mandatum Pon-
tificis super concessione dictorum librorum registratum fuit in Camera A postolica
per D. Franciscum De Attavantes Notarium, ubi etiam annotata est obligatio,
Promisit restituere intra annum sub poena ducentorum ducatorum.”—‘ Restituit
die 9 Juli, MDXVIII. Itaest, Fr, Zenobius Bibliothecarius.”

19—2

292 ON THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

Hebrew books, with the exception of two which contain portions
of the Septuagint in Greek?, Thus we seem cut off from all hope
of obtaining direct information as to the age, character and pre-
sent locality of the materials employed for the Greek text of this
edition.

It is obvious, however, that in the course of twelve years
(1502—14), Ximenes may have obtained transcripts of codices
he did not himself possess, and since some of the more remark-
able readings of the Complutensian are found in but one or two
manuscripts (e.g. Luke i. 64 in Codd. 140, 251; ii. 22 in
Cod. 76), such copies should of course be narrowly watched.
We have pointed out above (p. 190) the resemblance that Seidel’s
codex (Act. 42, Paul. 48, Apoc. 13) bears to this edition: see
too Cod. 4 of the Gospels. Mill first noticed its affinity to
Laud. 2 or Evan. 51, Act. 32, Paul. 38 (see p. 147), and though
this is somewhat remote in the Gospels, throughout the Acts
and Epistles it is close and indubitable?. We see, therefore,
no cause for believing that either Cod. B, or any manuscript
much resembling it in character, or any other document of high
antiquity or first-rate importance, was employed by the editors
of this Polyglott. The text it exhibits does not widely differ
from that of most codices written from the tenth century down-
wards.

That it was corrupted from the parallel Latin version was
contended by Wetstein and others on very insufficient grounds.

1 The Catalogue is copied at length by Tregelles (Account of the Printed Text,
pp. 15—18). It is scarcely worth while to repeat the silly story taken up by
Moldenhawer, whose admiration of las cosas de Espaia was not extravagantly
high, that the Alcala manuscripts had been sold to make sky-rockets about 1749;
to which Sir John Bowring pleasantly adds in 1819, “ΤῸ celebrate the arrival of
some worthless grandee.” Gutierrez’s recent list comprehends all the codices
named in the University Catalogue made in 1745; and we may hope that the
Governor of Hong Kong no longer believes that all grandees are worthless.

2 Thus in St Mark the Complutensian varies from Laud. 2 in 51 places, and
nowhere agrees with it except in company with a mass of other copies. In the
Acts on the contrary they agree 139 times, and differ but 41, some of their loci
singulares being quite decisive: e. ΚΖ. X. 17.) Abs Bi, 122 RVR sees Sh ee
16; τ Pet. iii. 12; 14; 2 Pet. i. 11. In most of these places Seidel’s Codex, in
some of them Act. 69, and in nearly all Cod. Havn. 1 (Evan. 234, Act. 57, Paul.
72) are with Laud. 2. On testing this last at the Bodleian in some forty places, I
found Mill's collation reasonably accurate. As might have been expected, his
Oxford manuscripts were examined much the best.

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 293

Even the Latinism βεελζεβοὺβ Matth. x. 25, seems a mere
inadvertence, and is corrected immediately afterwards (xii. 24,
27), as well as in the four other places wherein it is used.
We need not deny that 1 John v. 7 was interpolated, and pro-
bably translated from the Vulgate, and a few other cases have
a suspicious look (Rom. xvi. 5; 2 Cor. v. 10; vi. 15; and espe-
cially Gal. iii. 19); the articles too are employed as if they
were unfamiliar to the editor (e.g. Acts xxl. 4; 8): yet we
must emphatically deny that on the whole the Latin Vulgate
had an appreciable effect upon the Greek. This point had
been demonstrated to the satisfaction of Michaelis and of Marsh
by Goeze*, in whose short tract many readings of Cod. Laud. 2
are also examined. In the more exact collation of the N. T.
which we have made with the common text (Hizevir 1624),
and which will be printed in the Appendix to the present
Chapter, out of 2777 places i all, wherein the Complutensian
edition differs from that of Elzevir (viz. 1046 in the Gospels,
576 in the Pauline Epistles, 541 in the Acts and Catholic
Epistles, 614 in the Apocalypse), in no less than 849 (distin-
guished in our collation by f) the Latin is at variance with
the Greek; in the majority of the rest the difference cannot
be expressed in another language. Since the Complutensian
N.T. could only have been published from manuscripts, it
deserves more minute examination than it has received from
Mill or Wetstein; and it were much to be desired that similar
collations could be made of several other early editions, espe-
cially the five of Erasmus.

Since this Polyglott has been said to be very inaccurately printed,
it is necessary to state that we have noted just 50 pure errors of the
press; in one place, moreover (Hebr. vii. 3), the Euthalian κεφάλαιον
has crept into the text. All the usual peculiarities observable in later
manuscripts are here, e.g. 224 itacisms (chiefly ὦ for o, 7 for εἰ, εἰ for
i, v for ἡ; o for εἰ, and vice versd); 32 instances of v ἐφελκυστικόν, or the
superabundant v, before a consonant; 15 instances of the hiatus for
the lack of v before a vowel; ovrws is sometimes found before a con-
sonant, but ovrw 68 times; οὐκ and οὐχ are interchanged 12 times.
The following forms, found in many manuscripts, and here retained,

1 Goeze’s ““ Defence of the Complutensian Bible” 1766 was not added to
the Library of the British Museum till 1857. He published a ‘“ Continuation” in
1769.

292 ΟΝ THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

may shew that the grammatical forms of the Greek were not yet
settled among scholars; παρήγγελεν Mark vi. 8; διάγγελε Luke ix.
60; καταγγέλειν Acts iv. 2; διαγγέλων Acts xxi. 26; ᾿καταγγέλων
1 Cor. 1 bg παραγγέλω 1 Cor. vii. 10; αναγγέλων 2 Cor. vil. 7; παραγ-
γέλομεν 2 Thess. iii. 4; παράγγελε 1 Tim. iv. 11; v. 7; vi. 17. The
augment a8 omitted 9 times (Matth. xi. 17; Acts Vii. “42; xxvi. 325
Rom. i. 2; Gal. di. 135° 1 Tim: vi 0 ἡ 2 Tims. 16; Anoer ay, 8;
xii. 17); the reduplication twice (John BA, he al Cor. xi. δ): μέλλω
and μέλει are confounded Mark iv. 38; Acts xviii. 17; Apoe. iii.
2; xi. 4. Other forms (some of them would be called Alexandrine,
see Chap. vil.) are παμπόλου Mark viii. 1; νηρέαν Rom. xvi. 15;
efatpetre 1 Cor. v. 13; αποκτένει 2 Cor. iii. 6; passim; στιχούμεν
Gal. v. 25; εἰπα Hebr. iii. 10; evpapevos ibid. ix. 12; απεσχέσθαι
1 Pet. ii. 11; καταλειπόντες 2 Pet. 11. 15; περιβαλλείται Apoc. iii. 5;
δειγνύντος ibid. xxii. 8. We have in 31 places cited changes in the
punctuation, but the stops are placed carelessly in the Greek, being
(.), (,), rarely (:), never (;). In the Latin the stops are pretty regular,
but the abbreviations very numerous, even such purely arbitrary
forms as xps for Christus. In the Greek o often stands at the end
of a word for s, ¢ and often ὕ or ὕ are set at the beginning of sylla-
bles, and there are nou aseript or subscript, and no capital letters
except at the beginning of a chapter, when they are often flourished.

All the forms enumerated above we have recorded in our colla-
tion, and numbered among the 2777 variations from the Elzevir text:
the following are also derived from the general practice of manu-
scripts, and occurring perpetually, are here named once for all:*
απάρτι, απάρχης, dav (for δ᾽ av), εἰμή, εξαυτής, επιτοαυτό, εφύσον,
εωσότου, καίτοιγε, καθημέραν, κατιδίαν, κατόναρ, μεθήμων, μέντοι, ουμή,
τουτέστι; ; and for the most part διαπαντός, διατί, διατούτο, εἴτις,
οὐκέτι ; sometimes we meet with such forms as παραφύσιν, and once
(Mark xiv. 7) evrowoa, Vulg. benefacere.

2. Erasmus’ New TESTAMENT was by six years the
earlier published, though it was printed two years later than
the Complutensian. Its editor, both in character and fortunes,
presents a striking contrast with Ximenes; yet what he lacked
of the Castilian’s firmness he more than atoned for by his true
love of learning, and the cheerfulness of spirit that struggled
patiently, if not boldly, with adversity. Desiderius Erasmus
(ἐράσμιος, i.e. Gerald) was born at Rotterdam in 1465, or, per-
haps, a year or two later, the illegitimate son of reputable and
(but for that sin) of virtuous parents. Soon left an orphan, he
was reluctantly forced to take the minor orders, and entered the
priesthood in 1492, Thenceforward his was the hard life of a
solitary and wandering man of letters, earning a precarious
subsistence from booksellers or pupils, now learning Greek at

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 295

Oxford (but αὐτοδίδακτος) ', now teaching it at Cambridge (1510);
losing by his reckless wit the friends his vast erudition had
won; restless and unfrugal, perhaps, yet always labouring
faithfully and with diligence. He was in England when John
Froben, a celebrated publisher at Basle, moved by the report of
the forthcoming Spanish Bible, and eager to forestall it, made
application to Erasmus, through a common friend, to undertake
immediately an edition τ the N.T.: “se daturum pollicetur,
quantum alius quisquam,” is the argument employed. This
proposal was sent on April 17, 1515, before which time Erasmus
had no doubt prepared numerous annotations to illustrate a
revised Latin version he had long projected. On September 11
it was yet unsettled whether this improved version should stand
by the Greek in a parallel column (the plan actually adopted),
or be printed separately: yet the colophon at the end of Kras-
mus’ first edition, a large folio of 675 pages, is dated February,
1516; the end of the Annotations, March 1, 1516; Erasmus’
dedication to Leo X., Feb. 1, 1516; and Froben’s Preface, full
of joyful hope and honest pride in the friendship of the first of
living authors, Feb. 24, 1516. Well might Erasmus, who had
besides other literary engagements to occupy his time, declare
subsequently that the volume “ praecipitatum fuit verius quam
editum;” yet both on the title-page, dnd in his dedication to the
Pope, he allows himself to employ widely different language”.
When we read the assurance he addressed to Leo, ‘ Novum ut
vocant testamentum universum ad Graecae originis fidem recog-
novimus, idque non temere neque levi opera, sed adhibitis in

1 Bp. Middleton may have lost sight of this pregnant fact when he wrote of
Erasmus, ‘‘an acquaintance with Greek criticism was certainly not among his best
acquirements, as his Greek Testament plainly proves: indeed he seems not to
have had a very happy talent for languages” (Doctrine of the Greek Article, p. 395,
3rd edition).

2 The title page is long and rather boastful. ‘‘ Novum Instrumentum omne,
diligenter ab Erasmo Roterodamo recognitum et emendatum, non solum ad grae-
cam veritatem, verum etiam ad multorum utriusque linguae codicum, eorumque
veterum simul et emendatorum fidem, postremo ad probatissimorum autorum
citationem, emendationem, et interpretationem, praecipue, Origenis, Chrysostomi,
Cyrilli, Vulgarii [1. 6. Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria], Hieronymi, Cypriani,
Ambrosii, Hilarii, Augustini, una cum Annotationibus, quae lectorem doceant,
quid qua ratione mutatum sit. Quisquis igitur amas veram theologiam, lege,
cognosce, ac deinde judica. Neque statim offendere, si quid mutatum offenderis,
sed expende, num in melius mutatum sit. Apud inclytam Germaniae Basilaeam.”

290 ON THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

consilium compluribus utriusque linguae codicibus, nec iis sane
quibuslibet, sed vetustissimis simul et emendatissimis,” it is
almost painful to be obliged to remember that a portion of ten
months at the utmost could have been devoted by Erasmus to
the text, the Latin version and the notes; while the only manu-
scripts he can be imagined to have used are Codd. Evan. 2, Act,
Paul. 2, with occasional reference to Evan. Act. Paul. 1 and Act.
Paul. 4 (all still at Basle, and described, Chap. 11. sect. 111.) for
the remainder of the New Testament, and to Apoc. 1 (now lost)
alone for the Apocalypse. All these, excepting Evan. Act. Paul.
1, were neither ancient nor particularly valuable, and of Cod. 1
he made but small account. As Apoc. 1 was mutilated in the
last six verses, Erasmus turned these into the Greek from the
Latin; and some portions of his version, which are found (how-
ever some editors may speak vaguely, sce p. 67) in no one known
Greek manuscript whatever, still cleave to our received text}.
When Ximenes, in the last year of his life, was shewn
Erasmus’ edition, which had thus got the start of his own, and
his editor, Stunica, sought to depreciate it, the noble old man
replied, “* would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets!
produce better, if thou canst; condemn not the industry of
another’.”” His generous confidence in his own work was not
misplaced. He had many advantages over the poor scholar and
the enterprising printer of Basle, and had not let them pass
unimproved. ‘The typographical errors of the Complutensian
Greek have been stated (p. 293); Erasmus’ first edition is in
that respect the most faulty book I know. Qicolampadius, or
John Hausschein [1482—1531], afterwards of some note as a
Lutheran, had undertaken this department for him, and was
glad enough to serve under such a chief; but Froben’s hot
haste gave him little leisure to do his part. We must, however,
impute it to design that ὁ subscript, which is elsewhere placed
quite correctly, is here set under 7 in the plural of the subjunc-
tive mood active, not in the singular (e.g. James 11. ὃ, ἐπιβλέ-
ψῃτε, εἴπῃτε bis, but v. 2, εἰσέλθη bis). With regard to the
text, the difference between the two editions is very wide in

1 Such are ὀρθρινός Apoc. xxii, v. 16; ἐλθέ bis, ἐλθέτω, λαμβανέτω τὸ Vv. 17;
συμμαρτυροῦμαι yap, ἐπιτιθῇ πρὸς ταῦτα,---τῷ (ante βιβλίῳ) v. 18; ἀφαιρῇ, βίβλου,
ἀφαιρήσει, βίβλου secund., καὶ ult..—r@ (ante βιβλίῳ) v. 19; ἡμῶν, ὑμῶν v. 21.

3 Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text, p. 19.

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 297

the Apocalypse, the text of the Complutensian being decidedly
preferable; elsewhere they resemble each other more closely,
and while we fully admit the error of Stunica and his colleagues
in translating from the Latin version into Greek 1 John v. 7,
it would appear that Erasmus has elsewhere acted in the same
manner, not merely in cases which for the moment admitted no
choice, but in places where no such necessity existed: thus in Acts
ix. 5, 6, the words from σκληρόν to πρὸς αὐτόν are interpolated
from the Vulgate, partly by the help of Acts xxvi. 14 (see
ΕΠ 19).

Erasmus died at Basle in 1536, having lived to publish four
editions besides that of 1516. 'The second has enlarged annota-
tions, and very truly bears on its title the statement, “multo
quam antehac diligentius ab Er. Rot. recognitum ;” for a large
portion of the misprints, and not a few readings of the first
edition are herein corrected, chiefly on the authority of a fresh
codex, Evan. Act. Paul. 3 (see p. 143). The colophon to the
Apocalypse is dated 1518, Froben’s Kpistle to the reader, Feb.
5, 1519. In this edition ὁ subscript is set right; Carp., Hus. t.,
κεφ. t., Am., Hus. (see p. 142), are added in the Gospels; Doro-
theus’ Lives of the Evangelists (see Cod. Act. 89, p. 193), and
the Euthalian κεφάλαια are given in both editions in Rom. 1,
2 Corinth. only, but the Latin chapters are represented through-
out. Of these two editions put together 3300 copies were printed.
The third edition (1522) is chiefly remarkable for its insertion
of 1 John v. 7 in the Greek text, under the circumstances
described p. 149, in consequence of his controversy with Stunica,
and with a much weaker antagonist, Edward Lee, afterwards
Archbishop of York, who objected to his omission of a passage
which no Greek codex was then known to contain. This
edition also was said to be ‘“tertio jam ac diligentius...recogni-
tum,” and contains also “Capita argumentorum contra morosos
quosdam ac indoctos,’’ which he subsequently found reason to
enlarge. The fourth edition (dated, March 1527) contains the
text in three parallel columns, the Greek, the Latin Vulgate,
and Erasmus’ recension of it. He had seen the Complutensian
Polyglott in 1522, shortly after the publication of his third
edition, and had now the good sense to avail himself of its aid
in the improvement of the text, especially in the Apocalypse,
wherein he amended from it at least ninety readings. His last

208 ON THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

edition of 1535 once more discarded the Latin Vulgate, and
differs very little from the fourth as regards the text}.

A minute collation of all Erasmus’ editions is a desideratum
we may one day hope to see supplied. All who have followed
Mill over any portion of the vast field he endeavoured to oceupy,
will feel certain that his statements respecting their divergencies
are much below the truth: such as they are, we repeat them for
want of more accurate information. He estimates that Erasmus’
second edition contains 330 changes from the first for the better,
70 for the worse (Proleg. N. T. § 1134); that the third differs
from the second in 118 places (ἰδέα. § 1138); the fourth from
the third in 113 places, 90 being those from the Apocalypse
just spoken of (ib/d. § 1141); the fifth differs from the fourth
only four times (bid. § 1150).

3. In 1518 appeared the Graeca Biblia at Venice, from the
celebrated press of Aldus, which professes to be grounded on a
collation of most ancient copies. However this may be in the
Old Testament, it follows Erasmus so closely in the New as to
reproduce his very errors of the press (Mill, NV. 7. Proleg. ὃ
1122), though it is stated to differ from him in about 200 places,
for the better or worse. If this edition was really revised by
means of manuscripts (see p. 159, Cod. 131) rather than by mere
conjecture, we know not what they were, or how far intelligently
employed. Another edition out of the many which now began
to swarm, wherein the testimony of manuscripts is believed to
have been followed, is that of Simon Colinaeus, Paris 1534, in
which the text is an eclectic mixture of the Complutensian
and Erasmian. Mill states (Proleg. ὃ 1144) that in about 150
places Colinaeus deserts them both, and that his variations are
usually supported by the evidence of known codices (Evan.
119, 120 at Paris have been suggested), though a few still
remain which may perhaps be deemed conjectural.

1 I never saw the Basle manuscripts, and probably Dean Alford has been more
fortunate, otherwise I do not think he has evidence for his statement that ‘‘ Eras-
mus tampered with the readings of the very few MSS. which he collated” (N. T.
Vol. τ. Proleg. p. 74, 4th edition), The truth is, that to save time and trouble, he
used them as copy for the press, as was intimated above, p. 143. For this purpose
corrections would of course be necessary (those made by Erasmus were all too
few), and he might fairly say, in the words cited by Wetstein (Proleg. p. 127),
“se codices suos praecastigasse.” Any wanton “tampering” with the text I am
loth to admit, unless for better reasons than I yet know of.

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 299

4. The editions of Robert Stephens, mainly by reason of
their exquisite beauty, have exercised a far wider influence than
these, and Stephens’ third or folio edition of 1550 is by many
regarded as the received or standard text. This eminent and
resolute man [1503—59] early commenced his useful career as
a printer at Paris, and having incurred the enmity of the Doc-
tors of the Sorbonne for his editions of the Latin Vulgate (see
p- 263), was yet protected and patronised by Francis I. [d. 1547]
and his son Henry II. It was from the Royal Press that his
three principal editions of the Greek N.T. were issued, the
fourth and last being published in 1551 at Geneva, to which
town he finally withdrew the next year, and made public pro-
fession of the Protestant opinions which had long been gather-
ing strength in his mind. The editions of 1546, 1549 are small
12° in size, most elegantly printed with type cast at the expense
of Francis: the opening words of the Preface common to both,
“Ὁ mirificam Regis nostri optimi et praestantissimi principis
liberalitatem”...have given them the name by which they are
known among connoisseurs. Hrasmus and his services to sacred
learning Stephens does not so much as name, nor indeed did he
as yet adopt him for a model: he speaks of “codices ipsa vetus-
tatis specie pene adorandos” which he had met with in the King’s
Library, by which, he boldly adds “ita hune nostrum recensui-
mus, ut nullam omnino literam secus esse pateremur quam plures,
lique meliores libri, tanquam testes, comprobarent.” The Com-
plutensian, as he admits, assisted him greatly, and he notes its
close connection with the readings of his manuscripts. Mill as-
sures us (Proleg. § 1220) that Stephens’ first and second editions
differ but in 67 places. In the folio or third edition of 1550
the various readings of the codices, obscurely referred to in the
Preface to that of 1546, are entered in the margin. This fine
volume derives much importance from its being the earliest ever
published with critical apparatus. In the Preface, written after
the example of the Complutensian editors both in Greek and
Latin, his authorities are declared to be sixteen; viz. a’ the
Spanish Polyglott; β΄, which we have already discussed (above,
p. 97, note 2); γ΄, δ΄, εἰ, ς΄, ζ΄, η΄, v, ve taken from King Henry
II.’s Library ; the rest (i.e. 6’, ια΄, ιβ΄, wy’, 08, os’) are those ἃ
αὐτοὶ πανταχόθεν συνηθροίσαμεν, or, as the Latin runs, “quae
undique corrogare licuit:”’ these, of course, were not necessarily

300 ON THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

his own; one at least (γ΄, Act. 9, Paul. 11, see p. 187) we are
sure was not. Although Robert Stephens professed to have col-
lated the whole sixteen for his two previous editions, and that
too ws οἷόν τε ἦν ἐπιμελέστατα, this part of his work is now
known to be due to his son Henry [1528—98], who in 1546 was
only eighteen years old. The degree of accuracy attained in
this collation may be estimated from the single instance of the
Complutensian, a book printed in very clear type, widely cir-
culated, and highly valued by Stephens himself. Deducting
mere errata, itacisms and such like, it differs from his third
edition in more than 2300 places, of which (including cases
where 7 or πάντες stands for all his copies) it is cited correctly
554 times (viz. 164 in the Gospels, 94 in St Paul, 76 in the
Acts and Catholic Epistles, 220 in the Apocalypse), and falsely
no less than 56 times, again including errors from a too general
use of πάντες]. I would not say with some that these authori-
ties stand in the margin more for parade than use, yet the text
is perpetually at variance with the majority of them, and in
119 places with them all*. If we trust ourselves once more to
the guidance of Mill (Proleg. § 1228), the folio of 1550 de-
parts from its smaller predecessors of 1546, 1549, in 284 read-
ings, chiefly to adopt the text of Erasmus’ fifth edition, but
even now the Complutensian is preferred in the Apocalypse,
and with good reason. Of his other fifteen authorities, ca’
(= Act. 8) and is’ (= Apoc. 3) have never been identified, but
were among the six in private hands: β΄ certainly is Cod. D or
Bezae; the learned have tried, and on the whole successfully, to
recognise the remainder, especially those in the Royal (or Im-
perial) Library at Paris. In that great collection Lelong has
satisfied us that y' is probably Evan. 4; 6’ is certainly Evan. 5;
εἰ Evan. 6; =’ Evan. 7; 7’ Evan. L; ζ΄ he believed to be Evan.
8, but see above, p. 190, note; ¢ appears to be Act. 7, Of

1 Mill says that Stephens’ citations of the Complutensian are 598, Marsh 578,
of which 48, or one in twelve, are false; but we have tried to be as exact as
possible. Certainly some of Stephens’ inaccuracies are rather slight, viz. Act. ix.
6; xv. 29; xxv. 5; xxviii. 3; Eph. iv. 32; Col. iii. 20; Apoc. i. 12; il. 1; 20;
24; iii. 2; 4; 7; 12; iv. 8; xv. 2, β seems to be put for a Matth. x. 25.

2 viz. in the Gospels 81, Paul 20, Act. Cath. 17, Apoc. 1 (ch. vii. 5), but for
the Apocalypse the margin had only three authorities, a’, ce’, i’ (ts’ ending xvii. 8),
whose united readings Stephens rejects no less than 54 times: see, moreover,
above, p. 97, note 2.

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 301

those in the possession of individuals in Stephens’ time, Bp.
Marsh (who in his Letters to Mr Archdeacon Travis, 1795, was
led to examine this subject very carefully) has proved that cy
is Act. 9 (see p. 187); Wetstein thought 6’ was Evan. 38 (but
see p. 146, note); Scholz seems to approve of Wetstein’s con-
jecture which Griesbach doubted (N. 7. Proleg. Sect. I. p.XXxviii),
that 8’ is Evan. 9: Griesbach rightly considers 16’ to be Evan.
120; με΄ was seen by Lelong to be Act. 10: these last four are
all xow in the Imperial Library. It has been the more difficult
to settle them, as Robert Stephens did not even print all the
materials that Henry had gathered; many of whose various
readings were published subsequently by Beza from the colla-
tor’s own manuscript, which itself must have been very defec-
tive. With all its faults, however, this edition of 1550 was a
foundation on which others might hereafter build, and was
unquestionably of great use in directing the attention of students
to the authorities on which alone the true text of Scripture is
based. R. Stephens’ smaller edition, published at Geneva 1551,
is said to contain the Greek text of 1550 almost unchanged,
between the Vulgate and Erasmus’ Latin versions. In this
volume we first find our present division of the N.T. into
verses (see above, p. 60).

We annex to our description of the earlier editions the following
collation of St James’ Epistle, as it is represented in ‘Erasmus’ first
edition, with Stephens’ N. T. of 1550, in order to illustrate the gra-
dual process by which the text was moulded into its present shape.
It will be remembered that the Complutensian (a collation of which
is given in the Appendix to this Chapter), was not published till
after Erasmus’ third edition. The references within brackets [ | are
made to those editions in which the false reading of 1516 was con-
tinued: when no brackets follow, the error or variation was corrected
in Erasmus’ second edition’,

᾿Βπιστολὴ τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου ἰακώβου. lee ἀποστόλου Er. 2, 3, 4,
5]. H του ayes ιακώβου ἐπιστολή καθολική Ο, Ἰακώβου ἜΣ eee
Au S. 1, 2, 8. Jacob. 1. 2. περιπέσῃτε. 5. ειδέτις. 6. διαδρινόμενος
secund. κλυδῶνι [Er, 2, 3, 4, δ]. 7. —o [Er. 2, 3, 4,5]. 11. οὕτως
[Er. 2, 3, 4, 5]. 12. Cons. 13. -- τοῦ [Er. ἌΣ. 5, 2]
14 ἐπιθυμίας, 19. ws τε [Er. 2]. 22. — μόνον ee Er. 2, &e. non
autem se 5]. 24. 0 ποιὸς. 20. ἀλλὰ [ Hr. 2, 9,4, δ, Ο]. it. 2. εἰσέλθη
bis. 3. ἐπιβλενητε. εἴπῃτε bis. iro. 6. as ia ητοιμάσατε ΟἿ.
οὐχ᾽ οἱ [οὐχ᾽ ot Er. 2, 3, 4: οὐχ οἱ δ] ὃς τις Hen 2, 3, 4, st
11. μοιχεύσης. φονεύσης. 12. οὕτως bis ae 2,3, 4,5: οὕπως secund,

1 Er. represents Erasmus, C. the Complutensian, 8. Stephens.

802 ON THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

3]. κρίνασθαι [Er. 2}. 16. δέτις | Er. 21. δῷτε. 17, 26. οὕτως [Er. 2,
3, 4, 5]. 19. πιστεύουσιν; 21, 23. ἁβραὰμ [Er. 2, 8.) 25. ῥαὰβ.
ἘΠῚ 1, bee omnes, praeter Ὁ 2. οὗτος. . π- αὐτῶν [Er. |.
5. οὕτως [Er. 2, 3,4, 5]. 6. +70 (ante wip) [Er. 2, 3, 4, δ]. 7. τὲ
prim. δομάζεται. 8, θανατοφόρου [ Er. 2, 3, 4,8]. 10. οὕτως [Er. 2, 3,
4, 5, ἥν Me σύκα [Er. 2, 3, 4, 5, C., 8. 1}. οὐδὲ μία [ Er. 2, 3, Ἢ
ἁλικὸν [Ε. 2, 3, 4, 5: αλικόν C.]. 17. πρωτόν μεν, lv. 2, -- δὲ
[Er. 2, 3, 4, é και ovk ἔχετε (— δε) (.1 8. διό τι [Er. 2, 3]. δαπανή-
σῃτε. 4. μοιχοι. -- οὖν [ν. 2, 3, 4, 5]. βουληθῆ. 0. -- διὸ λέγει ad
Jin. vers. [Er. 2, 8, 4, 5] 8. ἐγγίζατε [Er. 2, 3]. 14. οὐκ. ἔσται [ Er.
2, Ο6.]. 15. θελήση. ν. 2. -- καὶ ἐν 2, ὃ, 4, 5]. 7. ἱδοὺ. -- ἂν [Er.
2, ὃ, 4,5]. 9. κριθῆτε [C., 8. 1, 2]. +0 ) (ante κριτής) [Er. 2, 3, 4, 5, C.,
= ig 2 Mali i [εἰς ὑ ὑπόκρισιν ones}. mie ὡς 16. id@yre. 17. Ἡλίας
[Er. 2,4, C.: “HAdas 3, 5: “Hdias 8. 1, 2, 3]. ἄνθροπος. 19. πλανηθῆ.
ἘΞ πδρέ Ναὶ “τις secund. [Er. 2} Tis τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου [-- ἀποστ.
Er. 2, ὃ, 4] ἰακώβου ἐπιστολῆς τέλος. Deest subscriptio in Er. 5, 8. 1, 2.

It will be remarked, that while the great mass of the errata in
Er. 1, both in spelling and accents, are corrected by Er. 2, most of
the peculiarities of reading run through his five editions (see espe-
cially i. 7; 111. 8; 12; iv. 6; v. 2), and are amended from the Com-
plutensian by Stephens. Twice Stephens’ third edition is at variance
with all the preceding (i. 13; v. 9), in each case with relation to the
article, his margin being silent. In St James alone too Er. 5 appears
to differ from Er. 4 in at least four places; no hopeful sign of Mill’s
accuracy (above, p. 298).

5. Theodore de Beze [1519—1605], a native of Vezelai in
the Nivernois, after a licentious youth, resigned his ecclesiastical
preferments at the age of 29 to retire with the wife of his early
choice to Geneva, the little city to which the genius of one man
has given so prominent a place in the history of the sixteenth
century. His noble birth and knowledge of the world, aided by
the impression produced at the Conference at Poissy (1561) by
his eloquence and learning, easily gained for Beza the chief
place among the French Reformed on the death of their teacher
Calvin in 1564. Of his services in connexion with the two
Codd. D, we have elsewhere spoken (pp. 96—8; 131): he put
forth himself, at long intervals, five editions of the N.T. (1565,
1576, 1582, 1589, 1598), with his own elegant Latin version
(first published 1556), the Latin Vulgate, and Annotations,
A better commentator perhaps than a critic, but most conspi-
cuous as the earnest leader of a religious party, Beza neither
sought very anxiously after fresh materials for correcting the text,
nor made any great use of what were ready at hand, his own
two great codices, the papers of Henry Stephens’ (see p. 301),
and ‘T'remellius’ Latin version of the Peshito (see p. 232). All his

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 303

editions (of which we shall give some specimens) vary some-
what from Stephens’ folio and from each other, yet there is no
material difference between any of them. He exhibits a tend-
ency, not the less blameworthy because his extreme theological
views would tempt him to it, towards choosing that reading out
of several which might best suit his own preconceived opinions.
Thus in Luke ii. 22 he adopts (and our Authorised English
version condescends to follow his judgment) τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ
αὐτῆς from the Complutensian, for which he could have known
of no manuscript authority whatever: ejus of the Vulgate would
most naturally be rendered by αὐτοῦ (see Campbell in loc.).
Wetstein calculates that Beza’s text differs from Stephens’ in
some fifty places (an estimate we shall find below the mark),
and that either in his translation or his Annotations he departs
from Stephens’ Greek text in 150 passages (Wetst. WN. 7.
Proleg. Tom. 1. p. 7).

6. The brothers Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir set up
a printing press at Leyden which maintained its reputation for
elegance and correctness throughout the greater part of the seven-
teenth century. One of their minute editions, so much prized by
bibliomanists, was a Greek Testament, 24°, 1624, alleging on the
title-page (there is no Preface whatever) to be ex Regiis altisque
optimis editionibus cum curd expressum: by Regiis, we presume,
Stephens’ editions are meant, and especially that of 1550. The
supposed accuracy (for which its good name is not quite de-
served) and great neatness of the little book procured for it
much popularity. When this edition was exhausted, a second
appeared in 1633, having the verses broken up into separate
sentences, instead of their numbers being indicated in the mar-
gin, as in 1624: in the Preface it seems to allude to Beza’s
N. T., without directly naming him: “Ex regiis ac caeteris
editionibus, quae Maxime ac prae caeteris nunc omnibus proban-
tur.” ΤῸ this edition is prefixed, as in 1624, a table of quota-
tions (πίναξ μαρτυριῶν) from the Old Testament, to which is
now added tables of the κεφάλαια of the Gospels, ἔκθεσις κεφα-
λαίων of the Acts and all the Kpistles. Of the person entrusted
with its superintendence we know nothing; nearly all his
readings are found either in Stephens’ or Beza’s N. T. (he
seems to lean to the latter in preference) ; but he speaks of the
edition of 1624 as that “omnibus acceptam ;” and boldly states,

904 ON THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

with a confidence which no doubt helped on its own accomplish-
ment, “textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo
nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus.” His other profession,
that of superior correctness, is also a little premature: “ut si
quae, vel minutissimae in nostro, aut in iis, quos secuti sumus
libris, superessent mendae, cum judicio ac cura tollerentur.”’
Although some of the worst misprints of the edition of 1624 are
amended (Matth. vi. 34; Col. ii.13; 1 Thess. ii.17; 2 Pet. i. 7),
others just as gross are retained (Act.ix.3; Rom. vii.2; xiii. 5;
1 Cor. xiii. 3; 2 Cor.iv.4; v.19; Hebr. xii.9; Apoc. xviii. 16) :
ἐθύθη in 1 Cor. v. 7 should not be reckoned as an erratum,
since it was adopted from design by Beza, and after him by
both Elzevir editions. Of real various readings between the
two Elzevirs, we mark but six instances (in the first five that
of 1633 follows the Complutensian); viz. Mark iv. 18; viii. 24;
Luke xii. 20; John ii. 6 bis; 2 Tim. i.12; Apoc. xvi. 5, to
be noticed below in their proper places.

Since Stephens’ edition of 1550, and that of the Elzevirs,
have been taken as the standard or Received text, the former
chiefly in England, the latter on the continent, and inasmuch as
nearly all collated manuscripts have been compared with one or
the other of these, it becomes absolutely necessary to know the
precise points in which they differ from each other, even to the
minutest errors of the press. Mill (NV. 7. Proleg. 1307) observed
but twelve such variations; Tischendorf gives a catalogue of
150 (N. 7. Proleg. p. Ixxxv, 7th ed.): it is hoped that the fol-
lowing list of 286 places will be found tolerably exact; mere
errata as regards the breathings or accents it seemed needless to
include.

Collation of Stephens’ N.T. 1550, with the Complutensian (Ὁ),
Beza’s of 1565 (B), and Elzevir’s (E! of 1624, Ἐ of 1633).

Stephens, 1550. Elzevir, 1624.
Matth. i. τ. ‘ABpadu passim. ᾿Αβραάμ passim.
Vi. 34. μεριμνήσητε C Β ἘΞ, μεριμνήσετε errore.
viii. 4. ἀλλ᾽ Β. ἀλλὰ C,
x. 4. ᾿Ισκαριώτης C. ὁ ᾿Ισκαριώτης Β.
xii. 18. ἡρέτισα B. ἠρέτισα.
xviii. 30. ἀλλὰ C, ἀλλ᾽ Β.

xix. 1, τῆς Γαλιλαίας C Β, Γαλιλαίας.

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

Matth. xx. 15.
22.

ΧΑΊ, 7/5

XX. 15. 12:

XXIV. 9.
15.
34:
xXV. 2.

Mare. i. 21.
27.

i 7

iv. 18,

vi. 9.

29.

Vili. 3.

24.

ix. 16.

38.

40.

45-

25s

xi, 14.

1. 20:
xiii. 14.
28.
Bae
ΧΙ 525
. 20,

Stephens, 1550.
el ὁ 690. Ο.
ὁ δὲ errore.
ἐπεκάθισεν Ο.
οὐαὶ δὲ ὑμῖν Τραμ.
καὶ φαρ. ὑποκρ. ὅτι
κατεσθίετε......
οὐαὶ ὑμῖν T. καὶ
φαρ. ὑποκρ. ὅτι
κλείετε....... C.
τῶν ἐθνῶν C B.
ἑστὸς Ο.
λέγω C Β ἘΞ,

καὶ αἱ πέντε Ο.

τὴν συναγωγὴν CB.
αὐτοὺς.

οὕτω Ο Β.

305

Elzevir, 1624.
ἢ ὁ ὀφθ. B.
δὲ ὁ Ο Β.
ἐπεκάθισαν B.
οὐαὶ δὲ ὑμῖν Τραμ.
καὶ φαρισ. ὑποκρ.
ὅτι κλείετε.....-.
οὐαὶ ὑμῖν I. καὶ
pap. ὑποκρ. ὅτι κατ---
-εσθίετε...... B.
ἐθνῶν.
ἑστὼς Β.
λέγων errore.
καὶ πέντε Β.

συναγωγὴν.
αὑτοὺς B.
οὕτως.

---οὑτοί εἰσιν secund. Ο ἘΞ, non 5. Β ἘΠ.

ἐνδύσησθε Ο.

τῷ μνημείῳ.

ἥκασι Ο.

--ὔτι et ὁρῶ C ἘΞ, non S BE}.
οἱ μαθηταὶ C B E?.

αὐτοὺς Β 1589 (εαυτούς C).
τῷ ὀνόματι C.

ὑμῶν bis Ο.

γέεναν errore.

εἰσελθεῖν Ο.

μηδεὶς Ο.

ἑπτὰ Ο.

ἑστὸς Ο.

ἐκφυῇ.

τὸ φῶς C Β,

Ἵσραὴλ hic tantum.

ἀμὴν C.

αὐτῶν

"AN

ἜἘσρὼμ C.

αὕτη ἣν χήρα
ἱκανὸς Ο.
παρήγγελλε Ὁ Β.
υἱὸς C B.
Xwpafly C.
ἀδικήσῃ C.

ἐνδύσασθαι B.
μνημείῳ C Β.
ἥκουσι Β.

ὁ μαθηταὶ errore.
αὑτοὺς B.

ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Β.
ἡμῶν bis Β.
γέενναν Ο Β.
διελθεῖν B.
οὐδεὶς Β,

ἑπτὰ οὖν B.
ἑστὼς Β.

ἐκφύῃ Ο Β.
φῶς.

᾿Ισραὴλ.

deest Β.

αὐτῆς Ο B.

‘AN.

᾽Εσρὼν Β.

αὕτη χήρα (αὐτῇ χήρᾳ C B).
ἱκανὸς ἦν B.

παρήγγειλε.

ὁ υἱὸς.

Χοραΐὶν Β.

ἀδικήσει Β.

καὶ στραφεὶς πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς εἶπε Ο: deest Β,

αἰτήσῃ C Β.
κρυπτὸν Β.
ἀλλ᾽ Ο Β.
γενήματα C.

αἰτήσει.
κρυπτὴν Ο.
ἀλλὰ.
γεννήματα Β.

306 ΟΝ THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

Lue. xii. 20.
xii. 8.

XViii. 3.
ab. Ie
ἘΝ, 81,
47.

XXil. 45.
xxiii. II.)
χχῖν. 4.)
χχὶῖν; 27.

Johan. i. 28.
i eer alg
iii. 6 bis.

iv. 5.
23.

50.
v..7%
vi. 28.
vii. 27.
38.
vill, 25.
59-

ix, 10.
> a I (7
33.
xiii, 30, 31.
xiv. If.
RVI: 33s
xviii. I.
20.

24.
xix. 7.
31.
ΣΙ. ἢ.
Act, ii. 36,
iV. 52.
v.04,
ὙἹ, 5.
vii. 26.
44.

viii. 19.
i Ὁ,

Stephens, 1550.

ἄφρον Ο ἘΞ, non 8 B ἘΠ,

κοπρίαν Β.

ὃν Ο Β.

παίδων αὐτοῦ

τοῦ μὴ C Β 1589.
τοῦ υἱοῦ Ο Β.

μία C,

versus deest.

χήρα δὲ Ο.

συκομωραίαν B. συκομωρέαν C,

οὐ κατέλιπον C,
μακρᾷ

μαθητὰς Ο.
ἐσθῆτα B.
ἐσθήσεσιν B.
περὶ ἑαυτοῦ C,

Βηθαβαρᾷ B (βηθανία C).

Κανᾷ.
γεγεννημένον Ο B Ἐ3,
Συχὰρ C.

αὑτόν.

οἱ δοῦλοι C B Ἐ5,
πρὸς

ποιοῦμεν Β.
ἔρχηται Ο Β.
ῥεύσουσιν CB,
ὅτι Ο.

οὕτω

σου οἱ C,

ὅτε C Β.

ἑλκύσω B.

νὺξ ὅτε ἐξῆλθε (,
ἐν ἐμοί

ἔξετε errore (ἔχετε in corrig.).

κέδρων.

πάντοτε Ο.
ἀπέστειλαν C,
Θεοῦ C.

ἐκείνου B.
Ναθανὴλ errore,

καὶ Κύριον C,

οὐδὲ Ο E?,
ἐγένετο.
καταστήσομεν CB.
TH Te C.

év secund, errore transfertur
in locum post διαδεξάμενοι, Vv. 45.

dy
περιήστραψεν C B.

Elzevir, 1624.

κοπρία Ο.

ὃ.

παίδων C Β,

μὴ Β 1565.

υἱοῦ.

ἡ μία Β.

habent C Β.
χήρα δέ τις B.
συκομορέαν.

καὶ οὐ κατέλιπον Β.
μακρὰ Β.
μαθητὰς αὑτοῦ B.
ἐσθῆτα.
ἐσθήσεσιν.

περὶ αὑτοῦ B.

Βηθαβαρᾷ.

Κανᾶ Β.
γεγενημένον El.
Σιχὰρ Β.

αὐτόν B.

οἱ δοῦλος errore.
πρὸ C B.

ποιῶμεν C,
ἔρχεται, etiam E?.
ῥεύσουσι.

ὅ,τι B.

οὕτως Ο Β.

σοι οἱ B.

ὅτι.

ἐλκύσω.

νύξ. Ὅτε οὖν ἐξῆλθε B.
ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐστίν C Β.
ἕξετε B. éxere C.
Κέδρων B.
πάντοθεν B.
ἀπέστειλαν οὖν B.
τοῦ Θεοῦ Β.
ἐκείνη C.
Ναθαναὴλ Ο Β.

Κύριον B.

οὐδ᾽ B.

ἐγίνετο C B.
καταστήσωμεν.
τῇ δὲ Β.

non ita C BE.

ἐὰν Ο Β,
περιέστραψεν errore,

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

Act. ix. 24.
35.

xiv. 8.
EAD 52.
Xvi. 4.
τῆ.

17.

XVli. 25.
XIX. 27.
33:

xxi. 3.

Xxill. 15.
τό.

Sed WEL
14.

18.

10.

xxvi. 8.
20.
XXVil. 13.
XXVili. 13.

Rom. i. 27.

He αὐ δὲ χῖ. "22.
vi. Io bis.

Vii. 2.

Vaile ΤΙΣ

21.
ix. 19.
25 Ὁ:
ΧΙ 2.
31.
33:
ΧΙ, δ.
πεῖς
xiii. 5.
Xvi. 5.
20.

1 Cor. i. 29.
iii. 15.
Vv. 7.

Il.

Stephens, 1550.
τὰ πύλας Errore.
Σαρωνᾶν C.
περιπεπατήκει Ο Β.
*Tovdas τε C.
πρεσβυτέρων C B Ἐ3.
Σαμοθρᾷάκην
ἡμῖν ὁδὸν C.
κατὰ πάντα Ο.
μέλλειν δὲ Ο.
προβαλόντων Β.
ἀναφάναντες
ἦλθον
διαγνώσκειν errore.
τὸ ἔνεδρον (,
παραστῆσαί με
τοῖς προφήταις C.
τινὲς δὲ
δεῖ Ο.
τί ἄπιστον Ο.
ἀπαγγέλλων
Ἄσσον
ely prim. errore.

ἄρρενες prim. C B.
ἴδε
ὃ Β.

τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ἀνδρὸς C B.

ἀποθανόντες C.
τὸ ἐνοικοῦν αὐτοῦ πνεῦμα

ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι" (C,).

τῷ γὰρ βουλήματι C Β.
ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ C B.
Ἠλίᾳ

ὑμετέρῳ C Β,

Ἂ

καθεῖς (καθείς Ο).
καιρῷ

ὑποτάσσεσθαι Β (υποτασεσθε C).

᾿ἙἜπαινετὸν C.
deest ἀμήν Ο.

καυχήσηται C B,

οὕτω

ἐτύθη Ο.

ἢ πόρνος

ἡμᾶς Ο Β.

ἐκ errore pro οὐκ primo.
συνέρχησθε C B 1565.

ὁ καιρὸς C,

Elzevir, 1624.
τὰς πύλας Ο Β.
Σάρωνα B.
περιεπεπατήκει.
᾿Ιούδας δὲ Β.
πρεσβυπέρων errore.
Σαμοθράκην B.
ὑμῖν ὁδὸν B.
καὶ τὰ πάντα Β.
μέλλειν τε Β.
προβαλλόντων C.
ἀναφανέντες Ο B.
ἤλθομεν Ο Β.
διαγινώσκειν C Β,
τὴν ἐνέδραν B.
παραστῆσαι C Β.
ἐν τοῖς προφήταις Β.
τινὲς Ο Β,
ἔδει B.
τί; ἄπιστον Β.
ἀπήγγελλον C Β.
ἄσσον (ἄσσον B).
εἰς C B.

ἄρσενες prim.
ἰδὲ (ειδε C).

ὁ.

τοῦ ἀνδρὸς.
ἀποθανόντος B.

τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος αὐτοῦ πνεύματος

CB.
"ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι B.
τῷ βουλήματι.
ἐν καρδίᾳ.
Ἡλίᾳ.
ἡμετέρῳ.
Ὦ.
καθ els Β.
Κυρίῳ Ο Β.
προτάσσεσθαι Errore.
᾿Επαίνετον B,

habet B.

καυχήσεται.

οὕτως Ο Β,

ἐθύθη Β.

ἢ πόρνος Β.

ὑμᾶς.

οὐκ Ο B.
συνέρχεσθε B 1508.
ὅτι ὁ καιρὸς Β.

20—2

808

1 Cor. vii. 29.
ibid.
re ha ἐ'

27.

xi. 22.
xii. 23.
xiil. 2.
. 5:
ive Τὴν
27.

XV. 2.
31.
XVi. 10.

2 Cor. 111. 3.
iv. 4.

Vi, As

10.

vi. 15.

vii. 12.

16,

viii, 8.

20.

$i ς

10.

xiii. 4.
Galat. iii. 8.
Lvs of

V. 2.

Ephes. i. 3.
iv. 25.

Phil. i, 23.

iv, 2.

Col. i. 2.

11. 13.

ibid.

1 Thess. ii. 15.
17.

x Tun. ἢ. 4,
ii. 13.

iii. 2.

ἔχ,

2 Tim. i. 5.
12.

iv. 13.

Stephens, 1550.
"τὸ λοιπόν ἐστιν ἵνα C.
οἱ ἔχοντες C Β.
ἡμεῖς errore.
δουλαγαγῷ errore.
ὑμᾶς ἐν τούτῳ ; οὐκ C,
ἀτιμότερα Ο Β.
οὐθὲν Ο.
ψωμίσω Ο.
jin. τῷ vot Ο Β.
ἀναμέρος
εἰκῆ Β.
ἡμετέραν B 1565.
ἐγάζεται errore.

ἀλλ᾽ C B.

τῆς δόξης C B.
ἐπειδὴ

θέμενος Ο Β.

βελίαρ

ὑμῶν τὴν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν
χαίρω C.

ὑμετέρας C Β.
ἀδρότητι

ἀνείχεσθε (Β 1580) μου μικρὸν
τῇ ἀφροσύνῃ Ο.
σφραγίσεται

καὶ γὰρ ἡμεῖς C.

ἐνευλογηθήσονται C,
ὑμᾶς θέλουσιν C,
Ἴδε Ο.

Χριστῷ
ἀλλήλοιν errore.

πολλῷ C,
Ἑῤωδίαν

Κολασσαῖς

ON THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

Elzevir, 1624.
τὸ λοιπόν ἐστιν᾽ ἵνα B.
ἔχοντες.
ὑμεῖς Ο Β,
δουλαγωγῶ C Β.
ὑμᾶς ; ἐν τούτῳ οὐκ Β.
ἀτιμώτερα.
οὐδὲν B.
ψωμίζω Β.
vot.
ἀνὰ μέρος C Β.
εἰκῇ.
ὑμετέραν Ο Β 1582.
ἐργάζεται C Β.
ἀλλὰ.
τὸν δ.
ἐφ᾽ OC B.
θήμενος errore.
Βελίαλ B (βελιάλ C).
ἡμῶν τὴν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν CB.
χαίρω οὖν B.
ἡμετέρας, etiam Ἐ,
ἁδρότητι Β.
ἠνείχεσθέ μου μικρὸν
τι τῆς ἀφροσύνης B.
φραγήσεται Ο Β.
καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἡμεῖς B.

εὐλογηθήσονται B.
ἡμᾶς θέλουσιν Β..
᾿1Ιδὲ Β.

ἐν Χριστῷ C Β.
ἀλλήλων Ο Β.

πολλῷ yap B.
Evodlay C B.

Κολοσσαῖς C B.

συνεζωοποίησε ἘΠ (-cev ὑμᾶς C), at συνεζωποίησε S BE,

χαρισάμενος ἡμῖν C,

ὑμᾶς
ἀπορφανισθέντες C Β ἘΞ,

οἰκονομίαν C.

Εὗα

νηφάλεον

νηφαλέους (non Tit. ii. 2)

Εὐνείκῃ.

χαρισάμενος ὑμῖν Β.

ἡμᾶς Ο Β.
ἀποφανισθέντες ἘΠ.
οἰκοδομίαν B.

Eva B.

νηφάλιον C B.
νηφαλίους C Β,

Εὐνίκῃ C B.

παρακαταθήκην C ἘΞ, at παραθήκην S Β ἘΝ,

φαιλόνην.

φελόνην Ο Β.

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

Tit. ii. 7.
Io,

Philem. 7.

Hebr. i. 12.
iv. 15.

Vil: Ns

Vili. 9.

1x. 2)

12.

χε τῶν

10.

xi. Q.

22, 23.

Jacob, iv. 13.

18.

Ile 7s

1 Johan. 1. 4.
li, 29.

iv. 14.

γ- τὰ-

2 Johan. 3.
5.
3 Johan. 7.

Jud. 9.

10.

24.

ἌΡος. i. 20.
i: Ἐς

I4.

lil. T.

12.

ibid,

Stephens, 1550.
Jin. ἀφθαρσίαν C.
ὑμῶν
χάριν Β 1580.

ἐλίξεις

πεπειραμένον C,

τοῦ ὑψίστου Β.

μου τῆς χειρὸς C Β.

ἁγία

εὑράμενος C Β.

ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἂν ;

οἱ διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς Ο.
ἐνετρεπόμεθα C B.

μυριάσιν ἀγγέλων πανηγύρει, C.

Σήμερον καὶ Ο.
πορευσώμεθα...ποιήσωμεν...
ἐμπορευσώμεθα...κερδήσωμεν C.
ποιήσωμεν Ο.

εἰς ὑπόκρισιν CO.

ἡμᾶς Ο Β.

ἡμῶν, ἡμῖν B 1582 (ημών, υμίν C).
omittit ἀγαθόν" ξητησάτω errore.
ὃ

ἀγάπη

καθὸ Ο.

σωτῆρος Ο.
φιλαδελφίαν Ο Β E?,
γεγενημένα C.
ἀσελγείαις C.

αὐτοῦ λόγῳ C,

χαρὰ ἡμῶν C.
γεγένηται
μαρτοῦμεν S, non C BE.
ὑμῶν 8.

μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν Ο.
γράφω

ὀνόματος
᾿Επιτιμήσαι B.
ἀποδιορίζοντες C.
φυλάξαι αὐτοὺς Ο.
ἑπτὰ Β.

τάχει

ἐν τῷ Βαλὰκ
πνεύματα

ναῷ C B.

ἡ καταβαίνουσα.

809

Elzevir, 1624.
deest B.
ἡμῶν C B.

χαρὰν C B 1565.

ἑλίξεις B.

πεπειρασμένον Β.

ὑψίστου Ο.

τῆς χειρὸς.

ἅγια Ο Β.

εὑρόμενος.

ἐπεὶ ἂν " CB.

διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς Β.
ἐντρεπόμεθα 67 7076.

μυριάσιν ἀγγέλων, ἸΤανηγύρει B.

Σήμερον ἢ Β.

πορευσόμεθα. ..ποιήσομεν...
ἐμπορευσόμεθα... κερδήσομεν ... B.
ποιήσομεν B.

ὑπὸ κρίσιν B.

ὑμᾶς.

ὑμῶν, ὑμῖν B 1565.

habent C B.

Ὧ (ὦ C, ῶ B).

ἡ ἀγάπη C Β.

καθὼς Β.

σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Β.
φλιαδελφίαν ἘΠ.
γεγεννημένα B.

ἐν ἀσελγείαις Β.

τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ B.

χαρὰ ὑμῶν Β.

γεγέννηται C Β.

ἡμῶν Ο Β.

μεθ’ ὑμῶν Β.
γράφων C Β.
ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ Ο Β.

᾿Ἐπιτιμῆσαί.
ἀποδιορίζοντες ἑαυτοὺς Β.
φυλάξαι ὑμᾶς Β.

ἐπτὰ prim., errore.
ταχὺ C Β.

τὸν Βαλὰκ C B.

ἑπτὰ πνεύματα ( Β.
λαῷ errore, etiam ΕἸ",
ἢ καταβαίνει C Β.

810 ΟΝ THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

Stephens, 1550. Elzevir, 1624.
Apoce. iv. 3. ὅμοιος ὁράσει (2° loco). ὁμοία ὁράσει C Β.
10. προσκυνοῦσι..-βάλλουσι C. προσκυνήσουσι C Β...βαλοῦσι B.
V. II. omittit καὶ nv ὁ ἀριθμὸς habent C B.
αὐτῶν μυριάδες μυριάδων
vil. 3. σφραγίζωμεν σφραγίσωμεν Ο Β.
7. ᾿Ισαχὰρ Ο Β. ᾿Ισασχὰρ, etiam Ἐ3,
10. τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τοῦ τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν τῷ
θρόνου τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου C Β.
17. ἀναμέσον ἀνὰ μέσον C B.
viii. 5. τὸ λιβανωτὸν. ..αὐτὸ τὸν λιβανωτὸν... αὐτὸν C Β.
11. τὸ τρίτον τὸ τρίτον τῶν ὑδάτων Ο B.
xi. I. omittit καὶ ὁ ἄγγελος εἱστήκει habet B. καὶ εἰστήκει o dyyedosC,
2. ἔσωθεν ἔξωθεν Ο Β.
ΧΙ, 3. ἐθαυμάσθη ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ γῇ ἐθαύμασεν ὅλη ἡ γῆ Ο Β.
5. ποιῆσαι B 1580. πόλεμον ποιῆσαι CB 1565,
xiv. 8. Βαβυλὼν C Β ἘΞ. Βαβουλὼν.
18, τῆς γῆς τῆς ἀμπέλου τῆς γῆς Ο Β.
Xvi. 5. ἐσόμενος (pro ὅσιοΞ) ἘΠ, non CS Β ἘΠ,
14. ἐκπορεύεσθαι ἃ ἐκπορεύεται Ο Β.
XVili. τό. κεχρυσωμένη C Β. κεχρυσωμένοι, etiam ἘΠ,
xix. I. φωνὴν ὡς φωνὴν Ο Β.
4. ἔπεσαν ἔπεσον C Β.
6. λέγοντας λεγόντων C B.
14. ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ τὰ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ Ο B,
xx. 4. τὴν εἰκόνα τῇ εἰκόνι C Β.
ibid. Χριστοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ C Β.
xxi. τό, σταδίων σταδίους C Β.
20. ἔνατος (Ὁ. ἔννατος B.
xxii. 8, ἔπεσα ἔπεσον C Ῥ.

Ναΐαρὲτ habent C St., Ναζαρὲθ B omnibus locis: Elz. autem Ναζαρὲτ Matth. ii.
23; iv.13; Ναζαρὲθ Matth. xxi. 11; Mare. i. 9; Lue. i. 26; ii. 4; 39; 51; iv. 16;
Johan. i. 46; 47; Act. x. 38.

Ἡσαῦ legit St. Rom. ix. 13; Hebr. xii. 16: ’Hoad Hebr. xi. 20: Elz. con-
trarium omnino.

“Ἱεριχὼ semper St.: etiam Elz. Mare. x. 46 bis; Hebr. xi. 30: at ᾿Ιεριχὼ Elz.
Matth. xx. 29; Luc. x. 30; xviii. 35; xix. I.

Variant St. Elz. inter κρῖμα et xplua: hoc tuentur Codd. EKMUT alii, Mare.
xii. 40; illud vero Aischyl. Suppl. 391: οὐκ εὔκριτον τὸ κρῖμα" μη΄ μ᾽ alpod κριτήν.

Quod ad v ἐφελκυστικόν, ut vocant, pertinet, in sequentibus variant St. Bez. Elz,

Matth. xii. 50. fin. ἐστίν CS. ἐστί BE.
xv. 27. εἶπε, val CS B. εἶπεν, val Ἐν
xxiv. 5,6. πλανήσουσι. μελλήσετε CS, πλανήσουσιν. Μελλήσετε BE.
{xxvi. 18, ἐστι, πρός B. ἐστιν, πρός ὃ Ἐ.}
Mare. xi, 18. ἀπολέσουσιν' ἐφοβοῦντο C 5, ἀπολέσουσι" ἐφοβοῦντο B E.

[Luc. x. 32, 33. ἀντιπαρῆλθε. Σαμαρείτης C B. ἀντιπαρῆλθεν. Σαμαρείτης S E.]

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, Shi

Johan. iii. 31,32. ἐστὶ, καὶ Ο 5. ἐστίν. KaiB EK,
Act. ii. 7. εἰσιν οἱ CSB. εἰσι of E.
xxii. 14. εἶπεν Ὁ CS. εἶπε ‘O BE.
[1Cor.xv.28,29. πᾶσιν. ᾿Επεὶ C B. πᾶσι. Ἐπεὶ S E.]
1 Thess, v. 7,8. μεθύουσι. Ἡμεῖς 8. μεθύουσιν. Ἡμεῖς B E.
2 Thess. iii. 3. ἐστι 6 S. ἐστιν ὁ BE.
1 Johan. v. 8, εἰσι. HS. εἰσιν, Hi BE.
Apoe. ii. 14. ἐδίδασκεν τὸν Βαλὰκ Β ἘΠ E?,
xiv. 20. ἐξῆλθεν αἷμα CS Β. ἐξῆλθε αἷμα KE.
xxi. 16. ἐστιν ὅσον S Β, ἐστι ὅσον KE,

In the following places Beza’s editions differ both from the Stephanic text of
1550 and from that of the Elzevirs. This list is somewhat incomplete.

Matth. i. 11. + ἐγέννησε τὸν Τακείμ' ᾿Ιακεὶμ δὲ (post Iwolas δὲ) 1565, non 1582.
Mare. xv. 43. --Ἦν 1589. Luc. i. 35. +é« σοῦ (post γεννώμενον) 1589. Vv. 7:
+ παρά τι (post ὥστε) 1582. vi. 37. -- μὴ secund. 1589. Johan. xix. 12 αὐτὸν
1589 (sic passim), non 1598. Act. iv. 27. - ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ (post ἀληθείας) 1589,
non 1565. xvi. 7 fin. - Ἰησοῦ 1589. xxii. 25. mpoéreway 1589. xxv. 6. - οὐ
(ante πλείους) 1589. xxvii. 3 τοὺς (ante φίλους) 1565. Rom. v. 17. ἑνὶ (pro
τοῦ ἑνὸς prim.) 1589. xv. 7. + τοῦ (ante Θεοῦ) 1589. iii. 3. ἡμῖν (pro ὑμῖν) 1589,
1598. x. 28. -- καὶ (post μηνύσαντα) 1589, 1598. xv. 23. +700 (ante Χριστου)
1565. 2 Cor. i. 6 post σωτηρίας prim. habet εἴτε παρακαλούμεθα usque ad παρα-
κλήσεως, Omisso THs σωτηρίας secund. ante τῆς ἐνερ. 1589. iii. τ. ἢ (pro el) 1589.
14. ὅτι pro 6 τι 1565, 1589. viii. 24. -- καὶ secund. 1589. Col. i. 2. + Ἰησοῦ (post
Χριστῷ) 1589. 7. ἡμῶν (pro ὑμῶν) 1565. 24. ds (pro 6) 1589. 1 Thess. ii. 12.
μαρτυρόμενοι 1565. 2 Thess. iii. 5. τὴν (ante ὑπομονὴν) 1565. 1 Tim. iv. 12.
μηθείς 1589, non 1598. Hebr. ix. 1. -- σκηνὴ 1589. Jac. ii. 18. χωρὶς (pro ἐκ
prim.) 1589. v. 9. Ὁ ὁ (ante κριτὴς) 1565: sic Er. Ο, 1 Pet. i. 4. ὑμᾶς (pro judas)
1589. li. 21. - καὶ (post yap) 1589. τ Johan. ii. 23. jin. +6 ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν
καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει 1589. iii. 16. - τοῦ Θεοῦ (post ἀγάπην) 1589, sic ὦ. Jud. v,
12. - ὑμῖν (post συνευωχούμενοι) 1565.

The following is the result of a collation in the Apocalypse οἵ Beza 1565 with
St. and Elz. i. 11. + ἕπτα (ante ἐκκλησίας). ii. 14. ἐδίδαξε. 20. πλανᾷν τοὺς (pro
πλανᾶσθαι). ili. 17. +6 (ante ἐλεεινός). iv. 3. σαρδίῳ. 8. ἕν καθ᾽ ἕν αὐτῶν ἔχον.
v. 7. --τὸ. 14. ἔπεσον. Vii. 11. πληρωθῶσι. 13. ἔπεσον. 14. +6 (ante οὐρανὸΞ).
vii. 2. ἀναβαίνοντα. 14. αὐτὰς (pro στολὰς αὐτῶν secund.). viii. 6. -Ἑ οἱ (ante
éyovres). το. - τῶν (ante ὑδάτων). 11. ἐγένετο. - τῶν (anle ἀνθρώπων). ix. 5.
βασανίσωσι. τι. +6 (ante ᾿Απολλύων). 19. 1 γὰρ ἐξουσία τῶν ἵππων ἐν τῷ στόματι
αὐτῶν ἐστι, καὶ ἐν ταῖς οὐραῖς αὐτῶν αἱ γὰρ... x. 7. GAN. Xi. 2. τεσσαρακον-
ταδύο (sic xiii. 5). 16. ἔπεσον. xii. 14. ὅπως τρέφηται. 24. αὐτὴν (pro ταύτην).
8. Ὁ τοῦ (ante ἐσφαγμένου. 13. καὶ πῦρ ἵνα καταβαίνῃ (-- ποιῇ). xiv. 1, 3.
τεσσαρακοντατέσσαρες. 7. +s (ante κιθαρῳδῶν). 7. - τὴν (ante θάλασσαν). το.
πίεται οἴνου ἐκ τοῦ θυμοῦ. 12. - τοῦ (ante ᾿Ιησοῦ). xvii. 4. ἦν (pro ἡ secund),
10. ἔπεσον. xviii. 6. -- καὶ secund. 10, 15, 17. ἀπομακρόθεν. xxi. 7. -- ὁ (ante
vids) 1589. xxii. 12, μετ᾽ ἐμέ. 20. Καὶ (pro Nai).

312 ΟΝ THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

7. R. Stephens was the first to bring together any consi-
derable body of manuscript evidence, however negligently or
capriciously he may have applied it to the emendation of the
sacred text. A succession of English scholars was now ready
to follow him in the same path, the only direct and sure one in
criticism; and for about eighty years our countrymen main-
tained the foremost place in this important branch of Biblical
learning. Their van was led by Brian Walton [1600—61],
afterwards Bishop of Chester, who published in 1657 the Lon-
don Polyglott, which he had planned twelve years before, as at
once the solace and meet employment of himself and a worthy
band of colleagues during that sad season when Christ’s Church
in England was for a while trodden in the dust, and its minis-
ters languished in silence and deep poverty. The fifth of his
huge folios was devoted to the N.T. in six languages, viz.
Stephens’ Greek text of 1550, the Peshito-Syriac, the Latin
Vulgate, the AXthiopic, Arabic, and (in the Gospels only) the
Persic. The exclusively critical apparatus, with which alone
we are concerned, consists of the readings of Cod. A set at the
foot of the Greek text (see pp. 66, 83); and in the sixth or sup-
plementary volume of Lucas Brugensis’ notes on various read-
ings of the Gospels in Greek and Latin; of those given by the
Louvain divines in their edition of the Vulgate (sce p. 263, and
Walton, Polygl. Tom. v1. No. xvul.); and especially of a col-
lation of sixteen authorities, whereof all but three had never
been used before (Walton, Tom. vit. No. χυτὴ. These various
readings had been gathered by the care and diligence of Arch-
bishop Ussher [1580—1656], then living in studious and devout
retirement near London. ‘They are (1) Steph. the sixteen copies
extracted from Stephens’ margin (see p. 300): (2) Cant. or
Evan. D (p. 98): (3) Clar. or Paul. D (p. 131): (4) Gon. or
Evan. 59 (p. 148): (5) 2m. or Evan. 64 (p. 150), and also
Act. 53 (p. 191): (6) Goog. or Evan, 62 (p. 150): (7) Mont. or
Evan. 61 (p. 149): (8) Lin. or Evan. 56 (p. 148), and also Act.
33 (p. 189): (9) Magd.1 or Evan. 57 (p. 148): (10) Magd. 2
or Paul. 42 (p. 201): (11) Nov. 1 or Evan. 58 (p. 148): (12)
Nov. 2 or Act. 36 (p. 189): (13) Bodl. 1 or Evan. 47 (p. 147):
(14) Trit. or Bodl. 2, Evan. 96 (p. 154): (15) March. Veles.,
the Velesian readings, described above, pp. 156—7: (16) Bid.
Wech., the Wechelian readings, which deserve no more regard

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 313

than the Velesian: they were derived from the margin of a
Bible printed at Frankfort, 1597, by the heirs of And. Wechel.
It is indifferent whether they be referred to Francis Junius
(p. 276), or F. Sylburg (p. 209) as editors, since all the readings
in the N.T. are found in Stephens’ margin, or in the early
editions.

Walton was thus enabled to publish very extensive addi-
tions to the existing stock of materials. That he did not try
by their means to form thus early a corrected text, is not at all
to be regretted; the time for that attempt was not yet arrived.
He cannot, however, be absolved from the charge to which
R. Stephens had been before amenable (p. 300), of suppressing a
large portion of the collations which had been sent him. The
Rey. C. B. Scott recently found in the Library of Emmanuel
College, Cambridge, the readings of Codd. D. 59, 61, 62, pre-
pared for Walton (Dobbin, Cod. Montfort. Introd. p. 21), which
Mill had access to, and in his N.T. made good use of, as well as
of Ussher’s other papers (Mill, Proleg. § 1505).

8. Steph. Curcellaeus or Courcelles published his N.T. at
Amsterdam in 1658, before he had seen Walton’s Polyglott.
The peculiar merit of his book arises from his marginal collec-
tion of parallel texts, which are more copious than those of his
predecessors, yet not too many for convenient use: later editors
have been thankful to take them as a basis for their own. There
are many various readings (some from two or three fresh manu-
scripts) at the foot of each page, or thrown into an appendix ;
mingled with certain rash conjectures which betray a Socinian
bias: but since the authorities are not cited for each separate
reading, his critical labours were as good as wasted."

A more important step in advance was taken in the Greek
Testament in 8vo, issued from the Oxford University Press in
1675. This elegant volume (whose Greek text is Stephens’)
was superintended by John Fell [1625—86], Dean of Christ-
Church, soon afterwards Bishop of Oxford, the biographer of

1 “Stephani Curcellaei annotationes variantium lectionum, pro variantibus
lectionibus non habendae, quia ille non notat codices, unde eas habeat, an ex
manuscriptis, an vero ex impressis exemplaribus. Possunt etiam pro uno codice
haberi.” Canon xIlI. pp. 11, 69—70 of the N. 7. by G. D. 7. M. D, (see below,
Ρ- 319).

814 ON. THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

saint-like Hammond, himself one of the most learned and muni-
ficent, if not quite the most popular Prelate, of that golden age
of the English Church, in whose behalf Anthony ἃ Wood de-
signates him ‘the most zealous man of his time.” His brief
yet interesting Preface not only discusses the causes of various
readings’, and describes the materials used for his edition, but
touches on that weak and ignorant prejudice which had been
already raised against the collection of such variations in the
text of Scripture; and that too sometimes by persons like John
Owen*® the Puritan, intrusive Dean of Christ-Church under
Cromwell, who, but that we are loth to doubt his integrity,
would hardly be deemed a victim of the panic he sought to
spread. In reply to all objectors the Bishop pleads the com-
parative insignificance of the change produced by various read-
ings on the general sense of Holy Writ, and especially that God
hath dealt so bountifully with his people “ ut necessaria quaeque
et ad salutis summam facientia in 8. literis saepius repeterentur ;
ita ut si forte quidpiam minus commode alicubi expressum, id
damnum aliunde reparari possit” (Praef. p. 1). On this assur-
ance we may well rest in peace. ‘This edition is more valuable
for the impulse it gave to subsequent investigators than for the
richness of its own stores of fresh materials; although it is
stated on the title-page to be derived “ex plus 100 MSS. Codi-
cibus.” Patristic testimony, as we have seen, Bishop Fell rather
undervalued (p. 284): the use of versions he clearly perceived,
yet of those at that time available, he only attends to the Gothic
and Coptic as revised by Marshall (pp. 271, 276): his list of
manuscripts, hitherto untouched, is very scanty. ‘To those used
by Walton we can add only 1, the Barberini readings, then just
published (p. 157) ; B, twelve Bodleian codices “‘ quorum plerique

1 Fell imputes the origin of various readings to the causes brought under
heads (9), (4), (6), (8), (17), (7) in the first Chapter of the present volume, adding
one which does not seem very probable, that accidental slips once made were
retained and propagated through a superstitious feeling of misplaced reverence,
citing in illustration Apoc. xxii. 18, 19. He alleges also the well-known sub-
scription of Irenaeus, preserved by Eusebius, which will best be considered hereafter
(Chap. vul.); and remarks, with whatever truth, that contrary to the practice of
the Jews and Muhammedans in regard to their sacred books, it was allowed ‘‘e
vulgo quibusvis, calamo pariter et manu profanis, sacra ista [N. T.] tractare”’
(Praef. p. 4).

2 Considerations on the Biblia Polyglotta, 1659: to which Walton rejoined,
sharply enough, in Zhe Considerator considered, also in 1659.

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 315

intacti prius,” in no-wise described, and cited only by the num-
ber of them which may countenance each variation; U, the two
Ussher manuscripts Evan. 63, 64 (p. 150) as collated by H.
Dodwell; three copies from the Library of Petavius (P, Act. 38,
39, 40, pp. 189, 190), a fourth from St Germains (Ge, Paul. E,
p- 133), the readings of these four were furnished by Joh.
Gachon. Yet this slight volume (for so we must needs regard
it) was the legitimate parent of one of the noblest works in
the whole range of Biblical literature,

9. Novum TEsTAMENTUM GRAECUM of Dr John Mill, Ox-
ford, 1707, in folio. This able and laborious critic, born in
1645, quitted his native village in Westmoreland at sixteen for
Queen’s College, Oxford, of which society he became a Fellow,
and was conspicuous there both as a scholar and a ready extem-
porary preacher. In 1685 his College appointed him Principal
of its affiliated Hall, St Edmund’s, so honourably distinguished
for the Biblical studies of its members, but Mill had by that
time made good progress in his Greek Testament, on which he
gladly spent the last thirty years of his life, dying suddenly in
1707, a fortnight after its publication. His attention was first
called to the subject by his friend, Dr Edward Bernard, the
Savilian Professor at Oxford, whom he vividly represents, as
setting before him an outline of the work, and encouraging him
to attempt its accomplishment. ‘“ Vides, Amice mi, opus...om-
nium, mihi crede, long dignissimum, cui in hoc aetatis tuae
flore, robur animi tui, vigilias ac studia liberaliter impendas”’
(Proleg. § 1417). Ignorant as yet both of the magnitude and
difficulty of his task, Mill boldly undertook it about 1677, and
his efforts soon obtained the countenance of Bp Fell, who pro-
mised to defray the expense of printing, and, mindful of the
frailty of life, urged him to go to press before his papers were
quite ready to meet the public eye. When about 24 chapters of
St Matthew had been completed, Bp Fell died prematurely in
1686, and the book seems to have languished for many following
years from lack of means, though the editor was busy all the
while in gathering and arranging his materials, especially for the
Prolegomena, which well deserve to be called ‘‘ marmore peren-
niora.” As late as 1704 John Sharp [1644—1714], Archbishop
of York, whose remonstrances to Queen Anne some years subse-

910 ΟΝ THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

quently hindered the ribald wit that wrote A Tale of a Tub from
polluting the episcopal throne of an English see, obtained from
her for Mill a stall at Canterbury, and the royal command to
prosecute his N. T. forthwith. The preferment came just in time.
Three years afterwards the volume was given to the Christian
world, and its author’s course was already finished: his life’s
work well ended, he had entered upon his rest. He was spared
the pain of reading the unfair attack alike on his book and its
subject by our eminent Commentator, Daniel Whitby (Zxamen
Variantium Lectionum, 1710), and of witnessing the unscrupu-
lous use of Whitby’s arguments made by the sceptic Anthony
Collins in his Discourse of Free Thinking, 1718.

Dr Mill’s services to Biblical criticism surpass in extent and
value those rendered by any other, except perhaps one man yet
living. A large proportion of his care and pains, as we have
seen (p. 284), was bestowed on the Fathers and ancient writers
of every description who have used and cited Scripture. The
versions are usually considered his weakest point: although he
first accorded to the Vulgate and its prototype the Old Latin the
importance they deserve, his knowledge of Syriac was rather
slight, and for the other Eastern tongues, if he was not more
ignorant than his successors, he had not discovered how little
Latin translations of the Aithiopic, &c. can be trusted. As a
collator of manuscripts the list subjoined will bear full testi-.
mony to his industry: without seeking to repeat details we have
entered into elsewhere (Chap. 11. Sect. 111.), it is right to state
that he has either himself re-examined, or otherwise represented
more fully and exactly, the codices that had been previously
used for the London Polyglott and the Oxford Ν, Τὶ of 1675.
Still it would be wrong to dissemble that Mill’s style of colla-
tion is not such as the strictness of modern scholarship demands.
He seldom notices at all such various readings as arise from the
transposition of words, insertion or omission of the Greek article,
homoeoteleuta (see p. 9), itacisms (p. 10), or manifest errors of
the pen; while in respect to general accuracy he is as much
inferior to those who have trod in his steps, as he rises above
Stephens and Ussher, or the persons employed by Walton and
Fell. It has been my fortune to collate not a few manuscripts
after this great critic, and I have elsewhere been obliged to
notice these plain facts, I would fain trust in no disparaging

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 317

temper. During the many years that Mill’s N.'T. has been my
daily companion, my reverence for that diligent and earnest
man has been constantly growing: the principles of internal
evidence which guided his choice between conflicting authorities
(see below, Chap. v1.) were simple (as indeed they ought to be),
but applied with rare judgment, sagacity, and moderation: his
zeal was unflagging, his treatment of his sacred subject deeply
reverential. Of the criticism of the N.T. in the hands of Dr
John Mill it may be said, that he found the edifice of wood, and
left it marble.

The following Catalogue of the manuscripts known to Mill exhibits the
abridged form in which he cites them (see p. 66), together with the more usual

notation, whereby they are described in Chapter 11. Sect. 11.—1v. of this volume;
and will tend, it is believed, to facilitate the use of Mill’s N. T.

AUER) csc we oe Cod. A. Colb. 11 =Colb. 1 Mont. ...... Evan. 61
Πα fete Evan. 112, GOUT Te ec esc Evan. 65 We» Wee caccrcas Evan. 58
Wetstein COON ΒΕΣ, Act. 25 NASER tect Act. 37
Baroe. ...... Act. 23 Οὐδ εἶς Act. 26 UN, Oe. Sees Act. 36
171 ORE ote Evan. E Cov AS see Act, 27 "ΣΡ des Evan. gt
ΒΡ Fs apne Act. 2 Cov. 5 Sin... Act. 28 ΘΥΣ eae Act. 38
5 og ek Act. 4 Cypr.-.....- Evan, K PER never Act. 39
Bodtary..-:. Evan. 45 Pitt. τον τῆς. ἢ videas p. 150 | Pet. 3 ...... Act. 40
Bodl ae. Evan. 46 Bipgaceh eo Evan. 71 Te enone: Evan. 49
Bodl. 3...... Evyst. 5 GON staat Evan. 66 ROC 2).......; Paul. 47
Bodl. 4...... Evst. 18 Geir --. τιν Paul. E WEE, Ty 5.1: Evan. 53
Bodl. 5...... Evst. 19 Geneur «τοῖς: Act. 29 ELM 2 5... Evan. 54
Bod. 6...... Evan. 47 Gort. ΝΣ τὰ Evan. 62 Rel. 53 005.2 Evan. 55
Βοαϊ..7.::Σ. Evan. 48 GOMES τον Evan. 59 Seldi, Al haces Evst. 21
ΘΟΕ ΕΣ Evan. 70 Hunt. 1 ...Act. 30 ELC. ἐγ. casa. Evst. 22
Canis δος Evan. Act.D | Hunt. 2 ...Evan. 67 Steph. codices Xvi. videas
Cant. 2...... Act. 24 OS, TA: Evan. 69 ῬΡ. 299—300.
Cant. 3...... Act. 53 Laud. 1 ...Evan. 50 ri ae ΤΝν Apost. 3
Oli: Fase Paul, D Laud. 2 ...Evan. 51 UM pee rete Evan. 96
Cold. 1 ...... Evan. 27 Laud. 3 ...Act. E Lf eee Cod. B
Colb. 2...... Evan. 28 Laud. 4 ...Evst. 20 VES.» eters Evan, 111,
Cold. 3...... Evan, 29 Laud. 5 ...Evan. 52 Wetstein
Colb 498 Eivan) 30, 34) ΤΠ. Evan. 56 Veen: e823 Evan. 76
Of eiana: Evan. 32 TANT Seineds Act. 33 Usser. 1 ...Evan. 63
Colb. 6 Act. 13 Se» ccs dias Evan. 60 Usser. 2. ...Evan. 64
Colb. 7... ( Paul. 147 MES δ sere Evst. 4. Wheel. « ...Evan. 68
Colb. 8 Evan. 33 Magd.1 ...Hivan. 57 Wheel. 2 ...Evan. 95
Colb. g=Colb. 1 Magd. 2 ...Paul. 42 Wheel. 3 ...Evst. 3
Colb. 10 =Colb. 2 Ls ae ee Evan. 42 Wech. videas pp. 312—3.

Mill merely drew from other sources Barb., Steph., Vel., Wech.; the copies
deposited abroad (B 1—3; Clar., Colb. 1—11; Cypr., Genev., Med., Per., Pet. 1
—3, Vat., Vien.) and 7’rin. or Apost. 3 he only knew from readings sent to him;
all the rest, not being included in Walton’s list (p. 312), and several of them.
also, he collated for himself.

818 ON THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

The Prolegomena of Mill, divided into three parts:—(1) on
the Canon of the New Testament; (2) on the History of the
Text, including the quotations of the Fathers (see p. 285) and the
early editions; and (3) on the plan and contents of his own work
—though by this time too far behind the present state of know-
ledge to bear reprinting—comprise a monument of learning such
as the world has seldom seen, and contain much information
the student will not even now easily find elsewhere. Although
Mill perpetually pronounces his judgment on the character of
disputed readings, especially in his Prolegomena, which were
printed long after some portions of the body of the work, yet he
only aims at reproducing Stephens’ text of 1550, though in a
few places he departs from it, whether by accident or design’.

In 1710 Ludolph Kiister, a Westphalian, republished Mill’s
Greek Testament in folio, at Rotterdam (with a new title-page,
Leipsic 1723, Amsterdam 1746), arranging in its proper place
the matter cast by Mill into his Appendix, as having reached him
too late to stand in his critical notes, and adding to those notes
the readings of twelve fresh manuscripts, ten collated by himself,
which he describes in a Preface well worth reading. Nine of
these codices are in the Imperial Library at Paris (viz. Paris. 1,
which seems to be Evan. 10; Paris. 2= Evan. M; Paris. 3=
Evan. 9; Paris. 4= Evan. 11; Paris, 5= Evan. 119; Paris. 6
= Evan. 13; Paris. 7= Evan. 14; Paris. 8 = Evan. 15; Paris.
9=the great Cod. C) ; Lips. =Evan. 78 was collated by Boerner;
Seidel. = Act. 42 by Westermann ; Boerner. = Paul. G (see p. 135)
by Kiister himself. He keeps his own notes separate from Mill’s
by prefixing and affixing the marks +, +, and his collations
both of his own codices and early editions will be found more
complete than Mill’s.

10. In the next year after Kiister’s Mill (1711) appeared
at Amsterdam, from the press of the Wetsteins, a small N. T.,
8°, containing all the critical matter of the Oxford edition of

1 Ag Mill’s text is sometimes reprinted in England as if it were quite identical
with the commonly received text, it is right to note the following passages wherein
it does not coincide with Stephens’ of 1550, besides that it corrects his typogra-
phical errors: Matth. xx. 15; 22; xxiv. 15; Mark ix. 16; xi. 22; xv. 29; Luke
vii. 12 bis; x. 6; xvii. 1; John viii. 4; 25; xiii. 30, 31; xix. 7; Act. ii. 36; xiv.
8; Rom. xvi. 11; 1 Cor. iii, 15; x, 10; xv. 28; 2 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. iv. 25; Tit.
ii, 10; 1 Pet. iii, 11; 21; iv. 8; 2 Pet. ii. 12; Apoc. xx. 4.

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 319

1675, a collation of one Vienna manuscript (Caes. = Evan. 76),
43 canons “secundum quos variantes lectiones N.T. exami-
nandae,” and discussions upon them, with other matter, forming
a convenient manual, the whole by G. D. T. M. D., which
being interpreted means Gerard de Trajecto Mosae Doctor, this
Gerard ἃ Mistrich being a Syndic of Bremen. A second and
somewhat improved edition was published in 1735, but ere that
date the book must have become quite superseded.

We have to return to England once more, where the criticism
of the New Testament had engrossed the attention of RIcHARD
BentLey [1662—1742], whose elevation to the enviable post of
Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1699, was a just recog-
nition of his supremacy in the English world of letters. As early
as 1691 he had felt a keen interest in sacred criticism, and in his
“ Epistola ad Johannem Millium” had urged that editor, in lan-
guage fraught with eloquence and native vigour, to hasten on the
work (whose accomplishment was eventually left to others) of
publishing side by side on the opened leaf Codd. A. D (Bezae)
D (Clarom.) i (Laud.). For many years Bentley’s laurels were
won on other fields, and it was not till his friend was dead, and
his admirable labours were exposed to the obloquy of opponents
(some honest though unwise, others hating Mill because they
hated the Scriptures which he sought to illustrate), that our
Avistarchus exerted his giant strength to crush the infidel and
to put the ignorant to silence. In his “ Remarks upon a late Dis-
course of Hree Thinking in a letter to Francis] Hare] D.D. by
Phileleutherus Lipsiensis,” 1713, Bentley displayed that intimate
familiarity with the whole subject of various readings, their
causes, extent, and consequences (see above, p. 7), which has
rendered his occasional treatise more truly valued (as it was far
more important) than the world-renowned “ Dissertation upon the
Epistles of Phalaris”’ itself. As his years were now hastening
on, and the evening of life was beginning to draw nigh, it was
seemly that the first scholar of his age should seek for his rare
abilities an employment more entirely suited to his sacred office
than even the most successful cultivation of classical learning ;
and so, about this time, he came to project what he henceforth
regarded as his greatest effort, an edition of the Greek New
Testament. In 1716 we find him in conference with J. J. Wet-
stein (then very young) and seeking his aid in procuring colla-

920 ON THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

tions. In the same year he addressed his memorable Letter to
Wm. Wake [1657—1737], Archbishop of Canterbury (whose own
mind was full of the subject), wherein he explains, with charac-
teristic energy and precision, the principles on which he proposed
to execute his great scheme. As these principles must be reviewed
in Chap. vil, we will but touch upon them now. His theory,
then, was built upon the notion that the oldest manuscripts of the
Greek original and of Jerome’s Latin version resemble each other
so marvellously, even in the very order of the words, that by
this agreement he could restore the text as it stood in the fourth
century, “so that there shall not be twenty words, or even par-
ticles, difference.”” ‘“ By taking two thousand errors out of the
Pope’s [i.e. the Clementine] Vulgate, and as many out of the
Protestant Pope Stephens’s [1550], I can set out an edition of
each in columns, without using any book under nine hundred
years old, that shall so exactly agrée word for word, and, what
at first amazed me, order for order, that no two tallies, nor two
indentures, can agree better.’ In 1720, some progress having
been made in the task of collation, chiefly at Paris, by John
Walker, Vice-Master of Trinity (see pp. 183—4), Bentley pub-
lished his Proposals for Printing’ a work which “he consecrates,
as a κειμήλιον, ἃ κτῆμα ἐσαεὶ, a charter, a magna charta, to the
whole Christian Church ; to last when all the ancient MSS. here
quoted may be lost and extinguished.’ Alas for the emptiness
of human anticipations! Of this noble design, projected by one
of the most diligent, by one of the most highly gifted men our
dear mother Cambridge ever nourished, nothing now remains but
a few scattered notices in treatises on Textual Criticism, and
large undigested stores of various readings and random obser-
vations, accumulated in his College Library; papers which no
real student ever glanced through, but with a heart saddened—
almost sickened—at the sight of so much labour lost®. The

1 These Proposals are very properly reprinted by Tischendorf (NV. 7. Proleg.
LXXXViI—xcvI, 7th edition) together with the specimen chapter. The full title
was to have been: “Η KAINH AITAOHKH Graece. Novum Testamentum Ver-
sionis Vulgatae, per s*“™ Hieronymum ad vetusta exemplaria Graeca castigatae et
exactae. Utrumque ex antiquissimis Codd. MSS., cum Graecis tum Latinis,
edidit Richardus Bentleius.”

2 The following work is just announced: BentLem Critica Sacra. Notes on
the Greek and Latin Text of the New Testament, extracted from the Bentley
MSS. in Trinity College Library. With the Abbé Rulotta’s Collation of the

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 321

specimen chapter (Apocalypse xxii.) which accompanied his
Proposals shews clearly how little had yet been done towards
arranging the materials that had been collected; codices are
cited there, and in many of his loose notes, not separately and
by name, as in Mill’s volume, but mostly as “ Anglicus unus,
tres codd. veterrimt, Gall. quatuor, Germ. unus,” &c., in the
rough fashion of the Oxford N.T. of 1675. Though Bentley
lived on till 1742, little appears to have been done for the Greek
Testament after 1721 (Walker’s Oxford collations of 1732 seem
to have been on his own account: see p. 183); and we cannot
but believe that nothing less than the manifest impossibility
of maintaining the principles which his Letter of 1716 enun-
ciated, and his Proposals of 1720 scarcely modified, in the face
of the evidence which his growing mass of collations bore
against them, could have had power enough to break off in the
midst that labour of love from which he had looked for un-
dying fame}.

11. The text and version of W. or Daniel Mace (The New
Testament in Greek and English, 2 vol. 8°, 1729) are alike un
worthy of serious notice, and have long since been forgotten.
And now original research in the science of Biblical criticism, so
far as the New Testament is concerned, seems to have left the
shores of England, to return no more for upwards of a century? ;
and we must look to Germany if we wish to trace the further

Vatican MSS [? MS: see p. 89], a specimen of Bentley’s intended edition, and an
account of all his Collations. Edited, with the permission of the Master and
Seniors, by the Rev. A. A. Ellis, M.A. late Fellow and Junior Dean of Trinity
College, Cambridge. Nearly ready.

1 ἐς This thought has now so engaged me, and in a manner inslaved me, that
vae mihi unless I do it. Nothing but sickness (by the blessing of God) shall
hinder me from prosecuting it to the end” (Bentley to Wake, 1716: Correspondence,
p- 508).

2 I cannot help borrowing the language of the lamented Dr Donaldson, used
with reference to an entirely, different department of study, in the opening of one
of his earliest and by far his most enduring work: ‘‘It may be stated as a fact
worthy of observation in the literary history of modern Europe, that generally,
when one of our countrymen has made the first advance in any branch of know-
ledge, we have acquiesced in what he has done, and have left the further im-
provement of the subject to our neighbours on the continent. The man of genius
always finds an utterance, for he is urged on by an irresistible impulse—a convic-
tion that it is his duty and vocation to speak: but we too often want those who
shall follow in his steps, clear up what he has left obscure, and complete his
unfinished labours” (New Cratylus, p. 1).

322 ON THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

progress of investigations which our countrymen had so au-
spiciously begun. The first considerable effort made on the
continent was

The New Testament of John Albert Bengel, 4°, Tubingen,
17341: his Prodromus N. T. Gr. rect? cauteque adornandi” had
appeared as early as 1725. This devout and truly able man
[1687—1752], who held the office (whatever might be its func-
tions) of Abbot of Alpirspach in the Lutheran communion of
Wiirtemberg, though more generally known as an interpreter of
Scripture from his valuable Gnomon Novi Testamenti, yet left
the stamp of his mind deeply imprinted on the criticism of the
sacred volume. As a collator his merits were not high; nearly
all his sixteen codices have required and obtained fresh exami-
nation from those who came after him?. His text (which he
arranged in convenient paragraphs, see p. 60) is the earliest
important specimen of intentional departure from the received
type; hence he imposes on himself the strange restriction of
admitting into it no reading (excepting in the Apocalypse)
Which had not appeared in one or more of the editions that
preceded his own. He pronounces his opinion on other select
variations by placing them in his lower margin with Greek
numerals attached to them, according as he judged them deci-
dedly better (a), or somewhat more likely (8), than those which
stand in his text: or equal to them (y); or a little (δ), or con-
siderably (e) inferior. ‘This notation has advantages which
might well have commended it to the attention of succeeding
editors. In his Apparatus Criticus, also, at the end of his
volume, he first set the example, now generally followed, of
recording the testimony in favour of a received reading, as
well as that against it.

1 The full title is “'H καινὴ διαθήκη. Novum Testamentum Graecum ita ador-
natum ut Textus probatarum editionum medullam, Margo variantium lectionum
in suas classes distributarum locorumque parallelorum delectum, Apparatus sub-
junctus criseos sacrae Millianae praesertim compendium limam supplementum ac
fructum exhibeat, inserviente J. A. B.”

* They consist of seven Augsburg codices (Aug. 1= Evan. 83; Aug. 2=Evan.
84; Aug. 3=Evan. 85; Aug. 4=Evst. 24; Aug. 5= Paul. 54; Aug. 6=Act. 46;
Aug. 7=Apoc. 80); Poson.=Evan. 86; extracts sent by Isel from three Basle
copies (Bas. a=Evan. E; Bas. B= Evan. 2; Bas. y=Evan. 1); Hirsaug.=Evan,
97; Mosc.=Evan. V, see p. 117, note: extracts sent by F. C. Gross. To these
add Uffenbach’s three, U/fen. 2 or r=Paul. M; Uffen. 1 or 2=Act. 45; Uffen. 3
= Evan. rot.

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 323

But the peculiar importance of Bengel’s N. T. is due to the
critical principles developed therein. Not only was his native
acuteness of great service to him, when weighing the conflicting
probabilities of internal evidence (see Chap. vI.), but in his
fertile mind sprang up the germ of that theory of families or
recensions, which was afterwards expanded by J. 8. Semler
[1725—91], and grew to such formidable dimensions in the
skilful hands of Griesbach. An attentive student of the dis-
crepant readings of the N.'T., even in the limited extent they
had hitherto been collected, could hardly fail to discern that
certain manuscripts, versions, and ecclesiastical writers, bear a
certain affinity with each other; so that one of them shall sel-
dom be cited in support of a variation (not being a manifest and
gross error of the copyist), unless accompanied by several of its
kindred. The inference is direct and clear, that documents
which thus withdraw themselves from the general mass of au-
thorities, must have sprung from some common source, distinct
from those, which in characteristic readings they but seldom
resemble. It occurred, therefore, to Bengel as a hopeful mode
of making good progress in the criticism of the N.T., to reduce
all extant testimony into ‘‘ companies, families, tribes, and na-
tions,” and thus to simplify the process of settling the sacred
text by setting class over against class, and trying to estimate
the genius of each, and the relative importance they may seve-
rally lay claim to. He wishes to divide all extant documents
into two nations: the As¢atic, chiefly written in Constantinople
and its neighbourhood, which he was inclined to disparage; and
the African, comprising the few of a better type (Apparatus
Criticus, p. 669, 2nd edition, 1763), Various circumstances
hindered Bengel from working out his principle, among which
he condescends to set his dread of exposing his task to senseless
ridicule!; yet no one can doubt that it comprehends the elements

1 Tt is worth while to quote at length Bengel’s terse and vigorous statement of
his principle: ‘‘ Posset variarum lectionum ortus, per singulos codices, per paria
codicum, per syzygias minores majoresque, per familias, tribus, nationesque illo-
rum, investigari et repraesentari: et inde propinquitates discessionesque codicum
ad schematismos quosdam reduci, et schematismorum aliquae concordantiae fieri;
atque ita res tota per tabulam quandam quasi genealogicam oculis subjici, ad
quam tabulam quaelibet varietas insignior cum agmine suorum codicum, ad
convincendos etiam tardissimos dubitatores exigeretur. Magnam conjectanea
nostra sylvam habent: sed manum de tabula, ne risuum periculo exponatur veritas, -

21-- 9

824 ΟΝ THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

of what is both reasonable and true; however difficult it has
subsequently proved to adjust the details of any consistent
scheme. For the rest, Bengel’s critical verdicts, always consi-
dered in relation to his age and opportunities, deserve strong
commendation. He saw the paramount worth of Cod. A, the
only great uncial then much known (N. 7, Apparat. Crit. pp.
390—401); the high character of the Latin version, and the
necessity for revising its text by means of manuscripts (did.
p- 391), he readily conceded, after Bentley’s example. His
mean estimate of the Greek-Latin codices (Hvan. Act. D; Act.
E; Paul. DG) may not find equal favour in the eyes of all
his admirers: he pronounces them “re vera bilingues ;’’ which
for their perpetual and wilful interpolations “non pro codicibus,
sed pro rhapsodiis, haberi debeant”’ (ibid. p. 386).

12. The next step in advance was made by John James
Wetstein [1693—1754], a native of Basle, whose edition of the
Greek New Testament (‘cum lectionibus Variantibus Codicum
MSS., Editionum aliarum, Versionum et Patrum, necnon Com-
mentario pleniore ex Scriptoribus veteribus, Hebraeis, Graecis
et Latinis, historiam et vim verborum illustrante’”) appeared in
two volumes folio, Amsterdam, 1751—2. The genius, the cha-
racter, and (it must in justice be added) the worldly fortunes
of Wetstein were widely different from those of the good Abbot
of Alpirspach. His taste for Biblical studies shewed itself early.
When ordained pastor at the age of twenty he delivered a
disputation, “De variis N.'T’. Lectionibus,” and zeal for this
fascinating pursuit became at length with him a passion: the
master-passion which consoled and dignified a roving, troubled,
unprosperous life. In 1714 his eager search for manuscripts led
him to Paris, in 1715—6 and again in 1720 he visited England,
and was employed by Bentley in collecting materials for his
projected edition (see p. 95), but he seems to have imbibed
few of that great man’s principles: the interval between them,
both in age and station, almost forbad much sympathy. On

Bene est, quod praetergredi montem hune, et planiore via pervenire datur ad
codices discriminandos. Datur autem per hance regulam aequissimam: Quo saepius
non modo singuli codices, sed etiam syzygiae minores eorum vel majores, in
aberrationes manifestas tendunt; eo levius ferunt testimonium in discrepantiis
difficilioribus, eoque magis lectio ab eis deserta, tanquam genuina retineri debet”
(N. T., Apparat. Crit. p. 387).

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 325

his return home he gradually became suspected of Socinian
tendencies, and it must be feared with too much justice; so that
in the end he was deposed from the pastorate (1730), driven
into exile, and after having been compelled to serve in a position
the least favourable to the cultivation of learning, that of a
military chaplain, he obtained at length (1733) a Professorship
among the Remonstrants at Amsterdam (in succession to the
celebrated Leclerc), and there continued till his death in 1754,
having made his third visit to England in 1746 (see p. 243).
His Prolegomena, first published in 1730, and afterwards, in an
altered form, prefixed to his N.'T., present a painful image both
of the man and his circumstances. His restless energy, his
undaunted industry, his violent temper, his love of paradox, his
assertion for himself of perfect freedom of thought, his silly
prejudice against Jesuits and bigots, his enmities, his wrongs,
his ill-requited labours, at once excite our respect and our pity:
while they all help to make his writings a sort of unconscious
autobiography, rather interesting than agreeable. Non sic itur
ad astra, whether morally or intellectually; yet Wetstein’s ser-
vices to sacred literature were of no common order. His philo-
logical annotations, wherein the matter and phraseology of the
inspired writers are illustrated by copious—too copious—quota-
tions from all kinds of authors, classical, Patristic or Rabbinical,
have proved an inexhaustible storehouse from which later writers
have drawn liberally and sometimes without due acknowledge-
ment; but many of the passages are of such a tenor as (to use
Tregelles’ very gentle language respecting them) ‘ only excite
surprise at their being found on the same page as the text of the
New Testament”? (Account of Printed Text, p. 76). The critical
portion of his work, however, is far more valuable, and in this
department Wetstein must be placed in the very first rank, in-
ferior (if to any) but to one or two of the highest names. He
first cited the manuscripts under the notation by which they are
commonly known (see p. 66), his list already embracing A—O,
1—112 of the Gospels; A—G, 1—58 of the Acts; A—H,
1—60 of St Paul; A—C, 1—28 of the Apocalypse ; 1—24
Evangelistaria; 1—4 of the Apostolos. Ofthese Wetstein him-
self collated about one hundred and two!, if not as fully or

1 We here reckon separately, as we believe is both usual and convenient,

every distinct portion of the N.T. contained in a manuscript. Thus Codd. C
or 69 Evan. will each count for four.

326 ON THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

accurately as is now expected, yet with far greater care than
had hitherto been usual: about eleven were examined for him
by other hands. On the versions and early editions he has like-
wise bestowed great pains; with the Fathers he has been less
successful. His text was that of Elzevir, not very exactly
printed (e.g. ὦ Oeddire is entirely omitted, Act. i. 1, where
there is no various reading), and immediately below it he placed
such readings of his manuscripts as he judged preferable to
those received: the readings approved by Wetstein (which do
not amount to five hundred, and those chiefly in the Apoca-
lypse) were inserted in the text of a Greek Testament published
in London 1763, 2 vol., by W. Bowyer, the learned printer.
Wetstein’s Prolegomena have also been reproduced by J. 58.
Semler (Halle, 1764), with good notes and facsimiles of certain
manuscripts, and more recently, in a compressed and modernized
form, by J. A. Lotze (Rotterdam 1831), a book which neither
for design nor execution can be much praised. The truth is that
both the style and the subject-matter of much that Wetstein
wrote are things of the past. In his earlier edition of his Pro-
legomena (1730) he had spoken of the oldest Greek uncial
copies as they deserve; he was even disposed to take Cod. A
as the basis of his text. By the time his N.T. was ready,
twenty years later, he had come to include it, with all the older
codices of the original, under a general charge of being con-
formed to the Latin version. That such a tendency may be de-
tected in some of the codices accompanied by a Latin translation,
is both possible in itself, and not inconsistent with their general
spirit; but he has scattered abroad his imputations capriciously
and almost at random, so as greatly to diminish the weight of
his own decisions. Cod. A, in particular, has been fully cleared
of the charge of Latinising by Woide, in his excellent Pro-
legomena ($6: see p. 83). His thorough contempt for that critic
prevented Wetstein from giving adequate attention to Bengel’s
theory of families; indeed he can hardly be said to have re-
jected a scheme which he scorned to investigate with patience.
On the other hand no portion of his labours is more valuable
than the “ Animadversiones et Cautiones ad examen variarum
lectionum N.'T. necessariae,” (N.'T. Tom. 11. p. 851—74), which
might be discussed more suitably in the next chapter. In this
tract his natural good sense and extensive knowledge of au-
thorities of every class have gone far to correct that impetuous

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 327

temperament which was ever too ready to substitute plausible
conjecture in the room of ascertained facts.

13. During the twenty years immediately ensuing on the
publication of Wetstein’s volumes, little was attempted in the
way of enlarging or improving the domain he had secured for
Biblical science. In England the attention of critics was directed,
and on the whole successfully, to the criticism of the Hebrew
Scriptures; in Germany, the younger (J. D.) Michaelis [1717—
91] reigned supreme, and he seems to have deemed it the
highest effort of scholarship to sit in judgment on the labours of
others. In process of time, however, the researches of John James
Griesbach [1745—1812], a native of Hesse Darmstadt, and a
pupil of Semler and J. A. Ernesti [1707—81] (whose manual
Institutio Interpretis N. 1. 1761 has not long been superseded),
began to attract general notice. Like Wetstein, he made a
literary tour in England early in life (1769) and with far more
profit; returning to Halle as a Professor, he published before
he was thirty (1774—5) his first edition of the N.T., which con-
tained the well-defined embryo of his future and more elaborate
speculations. It will be convenient to reserve the examination
of his views until we have described the investigations of several
collators who unknowingly (and in one instance, no doubt very
unwillingly) were busy in gathering stores which he was to turn
to his own use.

(1) Christian Frederick Matthaei, a Thuringian [1744—
1811], was appointed, on the recommendation of his tutor Kr-
nesti, to the Professorship of Classical Literature at Moscow:
so far as philology is concerned, he probably merited Bp. Mid-
dleton’s praise, as “the most accurate scholar who ever edited
the N. T.” (Doctrine of the Greek Article, p. 244, 3rd edi-
tion). At Moscow he found a large number of Greek manu-
scripts, both Biblical and Patristic, originally brought from
Athos (see p. 166), quite uncollated, and almost entirely un-
known in the west of Kurope. With laudable resolution he set
himself to examine them, and gradually formed the scheme of
publishing an edition of the New Testament by the aid of
materials so precious and abundant. All authors that de-
serve that honourable name may be presumed to learn not a
little, even on the subject they know best, while preparing an

328 ON THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

important work for the public eye; but Matthaei was as yet
ignorant of the first principles of the critical art; and beginning
thus late, there was much, of a very elementary character, which
he never understood at all. When he commenced writing he
had not seen the volumes of Mill or Wetstein; and to this signi-
ficant fact we must impute that inability which clave to him to
the last, of discriminating the relative age and value of his own
or others’ codices. ‘The palaeographical portion of the science,
indeed, he gradually acquired from the study of his documents,
and the many facsimiles of them he represents in his edition ;
but what can be thought of his judgment, when he persisted
in asserting the intrinsic superiority of Cod. 69 of the Acts
[XIII, see p. 192] to the great uncials AC? (N. 7. Tom. xu.
p- 222)’. Hence it results that Matthaei’s text, which of
course he moulded on his own views, must be held in slight
esteem: his services as a collator comprehend his whole claim
(and that no trifling one) to our thankful regard. To him
solely we are indebted for Evan. V; 237—259; Act. 98—
107; Paul. 1183—124; Apoc. 47—50°; Evst. 47—57; Apost.
13—20; nearly all at Moscow: the whole seventy, together
with the citations of Scripture in about thirty manuscripts of
Chrysostom, being so fully and accurately collated, that the
reader need not be at a loss whether any particular copy
supports or opposes the reading in the common text. Matthaei’s
further services in connection with Cod. G Paul. (p. 136) and a
few others (Act. 69, Paul. 76, Apoc. 32, &c.) have been noticed
in their proper places. ΤῸ his Greek text was annexed the Latin
Vulgate (the only version, in its present state, he professes to
regard, Tom. ΧΙ. p. xii.) from the Cod. Demidovianus (see p.
265). The first volume of this edition appeared in 1782, after
it had been already eight years in preparation; this comprised
the Catholic Epistles. The rest of the work was published
at intervals during the next six years, in eleven more thin
parts 8°, the whole series being closed by St Matthew and Mark

1 One other specimen of Matthaei’s critical skill will suffice: he is speaking of
his Cod. H, which is our Evst. 50 (see p. 214). ‘Hie Codex scriptus est literis
quadratis, estque eorum omnium, qui adhuc in Europa innotuerunt et vetustis-
simus et praestantissimus. Insanus quidem fuerit, qui cum hoe aut Cod. V
[p. 117] comparare, aut aequiparare voluerit Codd. Alexandr, Clar. Germ, Boern.
Cant. [Evan. AD, Paul. ADEG], qui sine ullo dubio pessim® ex scholiis et Ver-
sione Latina Vulgata interpolati sunt” (Δ᾽, 7., Tom. IX, p. 254).

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 329

in 1788. Each volume has a Preface, much descriptive matter,
and twenty-nine facsimiles of Manuscripts, the whole in com-
plete and almost hopeless disorder, and the general title-page
absurdly long. Hence his critical principles (if such they may
be termed) must be picked up piecemeal; and it is not very
pleasant to observe the sort of influence which hostile contro-
versy exercised over his mind and temper. While yet fresh
at his task (1782), anticipating the fair fame his most profitable.
researches had so well earned, Matthaei is frank, calm and ra-
tional: even at a later period J. D. Michaelis is, in his estima-
tion, the keenest of living judges of codices, and he says so
the rather “ quod 1116 vir doctissimus multis modis me, qué de
causa ipse ignoro, partim jocosé, partim serid, vexavit.” (Tom.
1. 1788, p. xxxi): Bengel, whose sentiments were very dis-
similar from those of the Moscow Professor, ‘ pro acumine,
diligentiaé et religione sud,” would have arrived at other con-
clusions, had his Augsburg codices been better (ἰδία. p. xxx).
But for Griesbach and his recension-theory no terms of insult
are strong enough; ‘‘risum vel adeo pueris debet ille Halensis
eriticus,’ who never saw, “ wt credibile est,” a manuscript even
of the tenth century (ἰδέα. p. xxiii), yet presumes to dictate to
those who have collated seventy. The unhappy consequence
was, that one who had taken up this employment in an earnest
and candid spirit, possessed with the simple desire to promote
the study of sacred literature, could devise no fitter commence-
ment for his latest Preface than this: “‘Laborem igitur molestum
invidiosum et infamem, inter convicia ranarum et latratus
canum, aut ferred patientia aut invicta pertinacidé his quindecim
annis vel sustinui, vel utcunque potui, perfeci, vel denique
fastidio et taedio, ut fortasse non nulli opinantur, deposui et
abjeci” (Tom. 1. Praef. p. 1): he could find no purer cause for
thankfulness, than (what we might have imagined but a very
slight mercy) that he had never been commended by those “ of
whom to be dispraised is no small praise ;’’ or (to use his own
more vigorous language) ‘quod nemo scurra...nemo denique de
grege novorum theologorum, hanc qualemcunque operam meam
ausus est ore impuro suo, laudeque contumeliosé comprobare.”’
Matthaci’s second edition in three volumes (without the Latin
and most of the critical notes) bears date 1803—7.

(2) The next, and a far less considerable contribution to

880 ΟΝ THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

our knowledge of manuscripts of the N. T., was made by Francis
Karl Alter [1749—1804] a Jesuit, born in Silesia, and Professor
of Greek at Vienna. His plan was novel, and, to those who
are compelled to use his edition (N. 7. Graecum, ad Codicem
Vindobonensem Grraece expressum, 8°, Vienna, 2 tom., 1786—7),
inconvenient to the last degree. Adopting for his standard a
valuable, but not very ancient or remarkable, manuscript in the
Imperial Library (Evan. 218, Act. 65, Paul. 57, Apoe. 33), he
prints this copy at full length, retaining even the v ἐφελκυστικὸν
when it is found in his model, but not (as it would seem) all the
itacisms or errors of the scribe. With this text he collates in
separate Appendices twenty-one other manuscripts in the same
great Library, comprising twelve copies of the Gospels (Codd. N.
(part), 3. 76. 77. 108, 123. 124. 125. 219. 220. 224. 225); six
of the Acts &c. (3. 43. 63—4; 6—7); seven of St Paul (3. 49. 67
—71); three ofthe Apocalypse (34.35.36), and two Evangelistaria
(45. 46). He also gives readings from Wilkin’s Coptic version,
four Slavonic codices and one Old Latin (7: sce p. 257). In em-
ploying this ill-digested mass, it is necessary to turn to a different
place for every manuscript to be consulted, and Alter’s silence
in any passage must be understood to indicate resemblance to
his standard, Evan. 218, and not to the common text. As this
silence is very often clearly due to the collator’s mere oversight,
Griesbach set the example of citing these manuscripts in such
cases within marks of parenthesis: thus “218 (108. 220)” indi-
cates that the reading in question is certainly found in Cod. 218,
and (so far as we may infer ea Alter? silentio) not improbably
in the other two. Most of these Vienna codices were about the
same time examined rather slightly by Andrew Birch.

(3) This eminent person, who afterwards bore successively
the titles of Bishop of Lolland, Falster, and Aarhuus, in the
Lutheran communion established in Denmark, was one of a
company of learned men sent by the liberal care of Christian
VII. to examine Biblical manuscripts in various countries.
Adler (Chap. 111. see pp. 234, 245) pursued his Oriental studies
at Rome and elsewhere; D. G. Moldenhawer and O. G. Tychsen
were sent into Spain in 1783—4; Birch travelled on the same
good errand 1781—3 through Italy and Germany. The
combined results of their investigations were arranged and
published by Birch, whose folio edition of the Four Gospels,

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 991

with Stephens’ text of 1550, and the various readings of himself
and his associates, full descriptive Prolegomena and facsimiles of
seven manuscripts (Codd. 8. 157 Evan; and five in Syriac), ap-
peared at Copenhagen in 1788. Seven years afterwards (1795)
a fire destroyed the Royal Printing-house, the type, paper and
unsold, stock of the first volume, the collations of the rest of the
N.T. having very nearly shared the same fate. These poor
fragments were collected by Birch into two small 8" volumes,
those relating to the Acts and Epistles in 1798, to the Apoca-
lypse (with facsimiles of Codd. 37, 42) in 1800. In 1801 he
revised and re-edited the various readings of the Gospels, in a
form to correspond with those of the rest of the N. T. Nothing
can be better calculated to win respect and confidence than the
whole tone of Birch’s several Prolegomena: he displays at once
a proper sense of the difficulties of his task, and a consciousness
that he had done his utmost to conquer them’. It is indeed
much to be regretted that, for some cause he does not wish to
explain, he accomplished but little for Cod. B (see p. 89); many
of the manuscripts on his long list were beyond question ex-
amined but very superficially; yet he was the first to open to us
the literary treasures of the Vatican, of Florence, and of Venice.
He more or less inspected the uncials Cod. B, Codd. ST of the
Gospels, Cod. G of the Acts, which is Paul. L. His catalogue
of cursives comprises Codd. 127—225 of the Gospels; Codd.
63—7, 70—96 of the Acts; Codd. 67—71, 77—112 of St Paul;
Codd. 83—4, 837—46 of the Apocalypse; Evangelistaria 35—39 ;
Apostolos 7, 8: in all 191 copies, a few of which were thoroughly
collated (e.g. Evan. §. 127. 181. 157. Evst. 36). Of Adler's
labours we have spoken elsewhere (pp. 234, 245); they are incor-
porated in Birch’s work, and prefaced with a short notice (Birch,
Proleg. Ὁ. \xxxv.) by their author, a real and modest scholar.
Moldenhawer’s portion of the common task was discharged in
another spirit. Received at the Escurial with courtesy and
good-will, his colleague Tychsen and he spent four whole

1 ἐς Conscius sum mihi, me omnem et diligentiam et intentionem adhibuisse, ut
haec editio quam emendatissima in manus eruditorum perveniret, utque in hoc
opere, in quo ingenio non fuit locus, curae testimonium promererem ; nulla tamen
mihi est fiducia, me omnia, quae exigi possint, peregisse. Vix enim potest esse
ulla tam perpetua legentis intentio, quae non obtutu continuo fatigetur, praesertim

in tali genere, quod tam multis, saepe parvis, observationibus constat.” (Lec-
turis Editor, p. v. 1788.) Well could I testify to the truth of these last words!

882 ΟΝ THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

months in turning over a collection of 760 Greek manuscripts,
of which only 20 related to the Greek Testament. They lacked
neither leisure, nor opportunity, nor competent knowledge; but
they were full of dislike for Spain and its religion, of overween-
ing conceit, and of implicit trust in Griesbach and his recensions.
The whole paper contributed by Moldenhawer to Birch’s Prole-
gomena (pp. lxi—Ixxxiv) is very disappointing, while its arro-
gance is almost intolerable. What he effected for other portions
of the N. ΤᾺ Ihave not been able to trace (226, 228 Evan., which
contain the Acts and Epistles are but nominally on Scholz’s
list for those books); the fire at Copenhagen may probably have
destroyed his notes. Of the Gospels he collated eight codices
(226—233), and four Evangelistaria (40—43), most of them being
dismissed, after a cursory review, with some expression of hearty
contempt. ‘To Codd. 226, 229, 230 alone was he disposed to
pay any attention; of the rest, whether “he soon restored them
to their primitive obscurity”? (p. lxxi), or “bade them sweet and
holy rest among the reliques of Saints and Martyrs” (p. Ixvii),
he may be understood to say, once for all, ‘Omnino nemo,
qui horum librorum rationem ac indolem...perspectam habet,
ex lis lectionis varietatem operosé eruere aggredietur, nec, si
quam inde conquisiverit, operae pretium fecisse a peritis arbitris
existimabitur”’ (p. lxxiv). It was not thus that Matthaei dealt
with the manuscripts at Moscow.

14. Such were the materials ready for Griesbach’s use when
he projected his second and principal edition of the Greek Tes-
tament (Vol. 1.1796, Vol. 11.1806). Not that he was backward
in adding to the store of various readings by means of his own
diligence. His Symbolae Criticae’ (Vol. 1.1785, Vol. τι. 1793)
contained, together with the readings extracted from Origen (see
above, Chap. Ivy. p. 285), collations, in whole or part, of many
copies of various portions of the N.'T. Besides inspecting Codd.
AD (Evan.), and carefully examining Cod. C,* he consulted no
less than 26 codices (including GL) of the Gospels, 10 (includ-
ing I) of the Acts, &c., 15 (including DEH) of St Paul, one of

1 Symbolae Criticae ad supplendas et corrigendas variarum N. T. lectionum
Collectiones. Accedit multorum N. 7. Codicum Graecorum descriptio et examen,

2 Yet Tischendorf (Δ, 7. Proleg. p. xevii, 7th ed.) states that he only added
two readings (Mark vi. 2; 4) to those given by Wetstein.

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 333

the Apocalypse (Cod. 29), twelve Lectionaries of the Gospels,
and two of the Apostolos, far the greater part of them being de-
posited in England. It was not, however, his purpose to exhibit
in his N. T. (designed, as it was, for general use) all the read-
ings he had himself recorded elsewhere, much less the whole
mass accumulated by the pains of Mill or Wetstein, Matthaei or
Birch. The distinctive end at which he aims is to form such a
selection from the matter their works contain, as to enable the
theological student to decide for himself on the genuineness or
corruption of any given reading, by the aid of principles which
he devotes his best efforts to establish. Between the text (in
which every departure from the Elzevir edition of 1624 is plainly
indicated by its being printed in smaller type) and the critical
notes at the foot of each page, intervenes a narrow space or Inner
margin, to receive those portions of the common text which
Griesbach has rejected, and such variations of his authorities as
he judges of equal weight with the received readings which he
retains, or but little inferior to them. These decisions he inti-
mates by several symbols, not quite so simple as those employed
by Bengel (see p. 322), but conceived in a similar spirit; and
he has carried his system somewhat further in his small or
manual edition, published at Leipsic 1805, which may be con-
ceived to represent his last thoughts in regard to the recension
of the Greek text of the N.'T. But though we may trace some
slight discrepancies of opinion between his earliest’ and his
latest works’, as might well be looked for in a literary career
of forty years, yet the theory of his youth was maintained,
and defended, and temperately applied by Griesbach even to
the last. From Bengel and Semler (see p. 323) he had taken
up the belief that manuscripts, versions, and ecclesiastical writers
divided themselves, with respect to the character of their testi-
mony, into races or families. ‘This principle he strove to reduce
to practice by marshalling all his authorities under their respec-
tive heads, and then regarding the evidence, not of individuals,
but of the classes to which they belong. The advantage of
some such arrangement is sufficiently manifest, if only it could
be made to rest on grounds in themselves certain, or, at all

1 Dissertatio critica de Codicibus quatuor Evangeliorwm Origenianis, Halae,

1771: Curae in historiam textus Graect epistolarum Paulinarwm, Jenae, 1777.
3 Commentarius Criticus in textum, Gr. N. T., Pt. 1. 1798; Pt. 11. 1811.

334 ΟΝ THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

events, probable. We should then possess some better guide
in our choice between conflicting readings, than the very rough
and unsatisfactory process of counting the number of witnesses
produced on either side. It is not that such a mode of conduct-
ing critical enquiries would not be very convenient, that Gries-
bach’s theory is universally abandoned by modern scholars, but
that there is no valid reason for believing it to be true.

At the onset of his labours, indeed, this acute and candid
enquirer was disposed to divide all extant materials into five
or six different families; he afterwards limited them to three, the
Alexandrine, the Western, and the Byzantine recensions. ‘The
standard of the Alexandrine text he conceived to be Origen ;
who, although his works were written in Palestine, was as-
sumed to have brought with him into exile copies of Scripture,
similar to those used in his native city. To this family would
belong a few manuscripts of the earliest date, and confessedly of
the highest character, Codd. ABC; Cod. L of the Gospels, the
Egyptian and some lesser versions. The Western recension
would survive in Cod. D of the Gospels and Acts, in the other
ancient copies which contained a Latin translation, in the Old
Latin and Vulgate versions, and in the Latin Fathers. The
vast majority of manuscripts (comprising perhaps nineteen-
twentieths of the whole), together with the larger proportion of
versions and Patristic writings, were grouped into the Byzantine
class, as having prevailed generally in the Patriarchate of Constan-
tinople. To this last class Griesbach hardly professed to accord
as much weight as to either of the others, nor if he had done so,
would the result have been materially different. ‘The joint testi-
mony of two classes was, caeteris paribus, always to prevail;
and since the very few documents which comprise the Alex-
andrine and Western recensions seldom agree with the Byzan-
tine even when at variance with each other, the numerous
codices which make up the third family would thus have about
as much share in fixing the text of Scripture, as the poor citizens
whose host was included in one of Servius Tullius’ lower classes
towards counterbalancing the votes of the wealthy few that
composed his first or second!.

1 The following specimen of a reading, possessing no internal excellence, pre-
ferred or favoured by Griesbach on the slightest evidence, will serve to illustrate

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 335

Tnasmuch as the manuscripts on which our received text was
based must, beyond question, be referred to his Byzantine family,
wide as were the variations of Griesbach’s revised text from
that of Elzevir, had his theory been pushed to its legiti-
mate consequences, the changes it required would have been
ereater still. The very plan of his work, however, seemed to
reserve a slight preference for the received text as such, in cases
of doubt and difficulty; and this editor, with a calmness and
sagacity which may well be called judicial, was usually disposed
to relax his stern mechanical law when persuaded by reasons
founded on internal probabilities, which (as we cheerfully admit)
few men have been found able to estimate with so much patience
and discrimination. The plain fact is, that while disciples like
Moldenhawer and persons who knew less than he, were regard-
ing Griesbach’s system as self-evidently true, their wiser master
must have had many a misgiving as to the safety of that im-
posing structure his rare ingenuity had built upon the sand.
The very essence of his theory consisted in there being not two
distinct families, but three; the majority deciding in all cases
of dispute. Yet he hardly attempted, certainly neither he nor
any one after him succeeded in the attempt, to separate the
Alexandrine from the Western family, without resorting to
arguments which would prove that there are as many classes as
there are manuscripts of early date. The supposed accordance
of the readings of Origen, so elaborately scrutinised for this
purpose by Griesbach (see p. 285), with Cod. A, on which our
editor lays the greatest stress, has been shewn by Archbishop
Laurence (Remarks on Griesbach’s Systematic Classification,
1814), to be ina high degree imaginary’. It must have been

the dangerous tendency of his system, had it been consistently acted upon through-
out. In Matth. xxvii. 4 for ἀθῶον he indicates the mere gloss δίκαιον as equal or
preferable, on the authority of the later margin of Cod. B, of Cod. L, the Thebaic,
Armenian, and Latin versions and Fathers, and Origen in four places (ἀθῶον
once). He adds the Syriac, but this is an error, as regards the Peshito or
Philoxenian ; the Jerusalem may countenance him (see p. 250); though in such
a case the testimony of versions is precarious on either side. Here, however,
Griesbach defends δίκαιον against all likelihood, because BL Origen are Alexan-
drine, the Latin versions Western. :

1 Laurence, in the Appendix to his Remarks, shews that while Cod. A agrees
with Origen against the received text in 154 places, and disagrees with the two
united in 140, it sides with the received text against Origen in no less than 444
passages,

336 ON THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

in anticipation of some such researches, and in a partial know-
ledge of their sure results, that Griesbach was driven to that
violent and most unlikely hypothesis, that Cod. A follows the
Byzantine class of authorities in the Gospels, the Western in
the Acts and Catholic Epistles, and the Alexandrine in St Paul.

It seems needless to dwell longer on speculations which,
however attractive and once widely received, will scarcely again
find an advocate. Griesbach’s text can no more be regarded
as satisfactory, though it is far less objectionable than such a
system as his would have made it in unskilful hands. His in-
dustry, his moderation, his fairness to opponents, who (like
Matthaei) had shewn him little forbearance, we may all imitate
to our profit. His logical acuteness and keen intellectual per-
ception fall to the lot of few ; and though they may have helped
to lead him into error, and have even kept him from retracing
his steps, yet on the whole they were worthily exercised in the
good cause of promoting a knowledge of God’s truth, and of
keeping alive, in an evil and unbelieving age, an enlightened
interest in Holy Scripture, and the studies which it serves to
consecrate},

15. Of a widely different order of mind was John Martin
Augustine Scholz [d. 1852], Roman Catholic Dean of Theology
in the mixed University of Bonn. It would have been well
for the progress of sacred learning and for his own reputation
had the accuracy and ability of this editor borne some propor-
tion to his zeal and obvious anxiety to be useful. His first essay
was his “ Curae Criticae in historiam textas Evangeliorum,” in
two dissertations, Heidelberg, 4°, 1820, containing notices of 48
Paris manuscripts (nine of them hitherto unknown) of which he
had fully collated seventeen: the second Dissertation is devoted
to Cod. K of the Gospels (see p. 108). In 1823 appeared his
“ Biblisch-Kritische Reise,’ Leipsic, 8°, Biblico-Critical Travels
in France, Switzerland, Italy, Palestine and the Archipelago,
which Schulz laid under contribution for his improved edition of
Griesbach’s first volume’. Scholz’s “N.T. Graece,” 4°, was

published at Leipsic, Vol. 1. 1830 (Gospels), Vol. 11. 1836,

1 David Schulz published at Berlin 1827, 8vo, a third and much improved
edition of his N.T., Vol. 1. (Gospels), containing also collations of certain addi-
tional manuscripts, unknown to Griesbach,

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. oot

The accession of fresh materials made known in these works
is almost marvellous: Scholz was the first to indicate Codd. 260
- 409 of the Gospels; 110—192 of the Acts, &c.; 125—246 of
St Paul; 51—89 of the Apocalypse; 58—181 Evangelistaria ;
21—58 Lectionaries of the Apostolos; in all 616 cursive codices.
His additions to the list of the uncials comprise only the three
fragments of the Gospels W? Y and the Vatican leaves of N (see
p- 110). Of those examined previously by others he paid most
attention to Evan. KX (M also for its synaxaria), and G Act.
(which is L Paul.); he moreover inspected slightly 82 cursive
codices of the Gospels after Wetstein, Birch and the rest; col-
lated entire five (Codd. 4. 19. 25. 28. 33), and twelve in the
greater part. In the Acts, &c. he inspected 27 of those known
before, partially collated two; in St Paul he collated partially
two, slightly 29; in the Apocalypse 16, cursorily enough it
would seem (see p. 207, Codd. 21—3): of the Lectionaries he
touched more or less 13 of the Gospels, 4 of the Apostolos. On
turning to the 616 codices Scholz placed on the list for the first
time, we find that he collated entire but 13 (viz. five of the
Gospels, three of the Acts, &c., three of St Paul, one each of the
Apocalypse and Evangelistaria): a few of the rest he examined
throughout the greater part; many in only a few chapters ; while
some were set down from printed Catalogues, whose plenteous
errors we have used our best endeavours to correct, so far as
the means were within our reach.

Yet after making a large deduction from our first impressions
of the amount of labour performed by Scholz, enough and more
than enough would remain to entitle him to our lasting grati-
tude, if it were possible to place any tolerable reliance on the
correctness of his results. Those who are, however superficially,
acquainted with the nature of such pursuits, will readily believe
that faultless accuracy in representing myriads of minute details is
not to be looked for by the most diligent and careful critic. Over-
sights will mar the perfection of the most highly finished of human
efforts; but if adequate care and pains shall have been bestowed
on detecting them, such blemishes as still linger unremoved are
no real subject of reproach, and do not greatly mar the value of
the work which contains them. But in the case of Scholz’s Greek
Testament the fair indulgence we must all hope for is abused
beyond the bounds of reason or moderation. The student who

338 ON THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

has had much experience of his volumes, especially if he has ever
compared the collations there given with the original manu-
scripts, will never dream of resorting to them for information he
can expect to gain elsewhere, or rest with confidence on a state-
ment of fact merely because Scholz asserts it. J. Scott Porter
(Principles of Textual Criticism, Belfast, 1848, pp. 263—6) and
Tischendorf (N. 7. Proleg. c—11. 7th edition) have dwelt upon
his strange blunders, his blind inconsistencies, and his habitual
practice of copying from his predecessors without investigation
and without acknowledgment; so that it is needless for us to
repeat or enlarge on that ungracious task!: but it is our duty to
put the student once for all on his guard against what could not
fail to mislead him, and to express our sorrow that twelve years
and more of hard and persevering toil should, through mere
heedlessness, have been nearly thrown away.

As was natural in a pupil of J. L. Hug of Freyburg (see
p. 89), who had himself tried to build a theory of recensions on
very slender grounds, Dr Scholz attempted to settle the text of
the N. T., upon principles which must be regarded as a modifi-
cation of those of Griesbach. In his earliest work, like that
great critic, he had been disposed to divide all extant authorities
into five separate classes; but he soon reduced them to two, the
Alexandrine and the Constantinopolitan. In the Alexandrine
family he included the whole of Griesbach’s Western recension,
from which indeed it is vain to distinguish it by any broad line
of demarcation: to the other family he referred the great mass of
more recent documents which compose Griesbach’s third or By-
zantine class; and to this family he was inclined to give the pre-
ference over the other, as well from the internal excellency of its
readings, as because it represents the uniform text which had
become traditional throughout the Greek Church. That such a
standard, public, and authorised text existed he seems to have
taken for granted without much enquiry. ‘Codices qui hoe
nomen [Constantinopolitanum] habent,” he writes, ‘“‘parum inter

1 One of Porter’s examples is almost amusing. It was Scholz’s constant habit
to copy Griesbach’s lists of critical authorities (errors, misprints and all) without
giving the reader any warning that they are not the fruit of his own labours. The
note he borrowed from Griesbach on τ Tim. iii, 16, contains the words “ uti
docuimus in Symbolis criticis:” this too Scholz appropriates (Tom. Il. p. 334,
col, 2) so as to claim the Symbolae Criticae of the Halle Professor as his own!

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 339

‘se dissentiunt. Conferas, quaeso, longé plerosque quos huic
classi adhaerere dixi, atque lectiones diversas viginti trigintave
in totidem capitibus vix reperies, unde conjicias eos esse accura-
tissimé descriptos, eorumque antigrapha parum inter se discre-
passe” (N. T. Proleg. Vol. 1. § 55). It might have occurred to
one who had spent so many years in studying Greek manu-
scripts, that this marvellous concord between the different By-
zantine witnesses (which is striking enough, no doubt, as we
turn over the pages of his Greek Testament) is after all due to
nothing so much as to the haste and carelessness of collators.
The more closely the cursive copies of Scripture are examined,
the more does the individual character of each of them become
developed. With certain points of general resemblance, whereby
they are distinguished from the older documents of the Alexan-
drine class, they abound with mutual variations so numerous
and perpetual as to vouch for the independent origin of nearly
all of them, and to have “swept away at once and for ever”’
(Tregelles’ Account of Printed Text, p.180) the fancy of a stand-
ard Constantinopolitan text, and every inference that had been
grounded upon its presumed existence. If (as we firmly believe)
the less ancient codices ought to have their proper weight and
appreciable influence in fixing the true text of Scripture, our
favourable estimate of them must rest on other arguments than
Scholz ‘has urged in their behalf.

Since this editor’s system of recensions differed thus widely
from Griesbach’s, in suppressing altogether one of his three
classes, and in yielding to the third, which the other slighted,
a decided preference over its surviving rival, it might have been
imagined that the consequences of such discrepancy in theory
would have been strongly marked in their effects on his text.
That such is not the case, at least to any considerable extent
(especially in his second volume), must be imputed in part to
Griesbach’s prudent reserve in carrying out his principles to
extremity (see p. 335), but yet more to Scholz’s vacillation and
evident weakness of judgment. In fact, on his last visit to
England in 1845, he distributed among Biblical students here a
“ Commentatio de virtutibus et vitiis utriusque codicum N. T.
familiae,’ that he had just delivered on the occasion of some
Encaenia at Bonn, in which (after various statements that dis-
play either ignorance or inattention respecting the ordinary phae-

22—2

340 ON THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

nomena of manuscripts which in a veteran collator is really un-
accountable’), he declares his purpose, chiefly it would seem from
considerations of internal evidence, that if ever it should be his
lot to prepare another edition of the New Testament, “se ple-
rasque codicum Alexandrinorum lectiones illas quas in margine
interiore textui editionis suae Alexandrinas dixit, in textum re-
cepturum” (p. 14). The text which its constructor distrusted,
has but small claim on the faith of others.

16. “Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, Carolus Lach-
mannus recensuit, Philippus Buttmannus Ph. Κ΄. Graecae lectionis
auctoritates apposuit”’ is the simple title-page of a work, by one
of the first philologists of his time, the first volume of which
(containing the Gospels) appeared at Berlin (8°) 1842, the second
and concluding one in 1850, whose boldness and originality
have procured it, for good or ill, a prominent place in the history
of the sacred text. Lachmann had published as early as 1831 a
small edition containing only the text of the N. T., with a list
of the readings, wherein he differs from that of Elzevir, preceded
by a notice of his plan not exceeding a few lines in length, itself
so obscurely worded that even to those who happened to under-
stand his meaning it must have read like a riddle whose solution
they had been told beforehand ; and referring us for fuller infor-
mation to what he strangely considers “a more convenient
place,” a German periodical of the preceding year’s date’, Au-

1 Some of these statements are discussed in Scrivener’s Collation of the Greek
Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels, Introd. pp. lxix.—1xxi.

2 The following is the whole of this notice, which we reprint after Tregelles’
example: ‘‘De ratione et consilio hujus editionis loco commodiore expositum est
(Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1830, pp. 817—845). Hic satis erit dixisse, editorem
nusquam judicium suum, sed consuetudinem antiquissimarum orientis ecclesiarum
secutum esse. Hance quoties minus constantem fuisse animadvertit, quantum fieri
potuit quae Italorum et Afrorum consensu comprobarentur praetulit: ubi perva-
gatam omnium auctorum discrepantiam deprehendit, partim uncis partim in
marginibus indicavit. Quo factum est ut vulgatae et his proximis duobus saeculis
receptae lectionis ratio haberi non posset. Hujus diversitatis hic in fine libri
adjecta est, quoniam ea res doctis judicibus necessaria esse videbatur.” Here
we have one of Lachmann’s leading peculiarities—his absolute disregard of the
received readings—hinted at in an incidental manner:—the influence he wag
disposed to accord to the Latin versions when his chief authorities were at variance
is pretty clearly indicated ; but no one would guess that by “ custom of the oldest
Churches of the East” he intends the few very ancient codices comprising Gries-

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 341

thors who take so little pains to explain their fundamental prin-
ciples of criticism, especially if (as in this case) these are novel
and unexpected, can hardly wonder when their drift and purpose
are imperfectly apprehended; so that a little volume, which we
now learn had cost Lachmann five years of thought and labour,
was confounded, even by the learned, with the common, hasty
and superficial reprints. Nor was the difficulty much removed
on the publication of the first volume of his larger book. It was
then seen, indeed, how clean a sweep he had made of the great
mass of Greek manuscripts usually cited in critical editions :—in
fact he rejects all in a heap excepting Codd. ABC, the fragments
PQTZ (and for some purposes D) of the Gospels; DE of the
Acts only; DGH of St Paul:—but even now he treats the
scheme of his work as if it were already familiarly known, and
spends his time in discursive controversy with his opponents and
reviewers, whom he chastises with a heartiness which in this
country we imputed to downright malice, till Dr Tregelles was
so good as to instruct us that in Lachmann it was but “a tone
of pleasantry,” the horseplay of coarse German wit (Account of
Printed Text, p.112). The supplementary Prolegomena which
preface his second volume of 1850 are certainly more explicit :
both from what they teach and from the practical examples they
contain, they have probably helped others, as well as myself, in
gaining a nearer insight into his whole design.

It seems, then, to have been Lachmann’s purpose, discarding
the slightest regard for the textus receptus as such, to endeavour
to bring the sacred text back to the condition in which it existed
during the fourth century, and this in the first instance by docu-
mentary aid alone, careless for the moment whether the sense
produced be probable or improbable, good or bad; but solely
looking to his authorities, and following them implicitly where-
soever the numerical majority might carry him. For accomplish-
ing this purpose he possessed but one Greek copy written as
early as the fourth century, Cod. B; and of that he not only
knew less than has since come to light (and even this is insuf-
ficient), but he did not avail himself of Bartolocci’s papers (sce.
p. 88), to which Scholz had already drawn attention. His other
bach’s Alexandrine class, and not the great mass of authorities, gathered from the

Churches of Syria, Asia Minor, and Constantinople, of which that critic’s Byzan-
tine family was made up,

842 ON THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

codices were not of the fourth century at all, but varying in date
from the fifth (ACT) to the ninth (G); and even of these few (of
C more especially) his assistant or colleague Buttmann’s represen-
tation was loose, careless, and unsatisfactory. Of the Greek
Fathers, the scanty Greek remains of Irenaeus and the works of
Origen are all that are employed; but considerable weight is given
to the readings of the Latin version. The Vulgate is printed at
length as revised, after a fashion, by Lachmann himself, from
the Codices Fuldensis and Amiatinus (see p. 264): the Old Latin
manuscripts abc, together with the Latin versions accompany-
ing the Greek copies which he receives’, are regarded as pri-
mary authorities; of the Western Fathers he quotes Cyprian,
Hilary of Poictiers, Lucifer of Cagliari, and in the Apocalypse
Primasius also (ἡ). The Syriac and Egyptian translations he
considers himself excused from attending to, by reason of his
ignorance of their respective languages.

The consequence of this voluntary poverty where our manu-
script treasures are so abundant, of this deliberate rejection of
the testimony of many hundreds of documents, of various
countries, dates and characters, may be told in a few words,
Lachmann’s text seldom rests on more than four Greek codices,
very often on three, not unfrequently on two; in Matth. vi. 20
—vil. 5, and in 165 out of the 405 verses of the Apocalypse on
but one. It would have been a grievous thing indeed if we
really had no better means of ascertaining the true readings of
the N. 'T. than are contained in this editor’s scanty roll; and he
who for the sake of some private theory, shall presume to shut
out from his mind the great mass of information God’s Provi-
dence has preserved for our use, will hardly be thought to have
chosen the most hopeful method for bringing himself or others
to the knowledge of the truth.

But supposing, for the sake of argument, that Lachmann
had availed himself to the utmost of the materials he has
selected, and that they were adequate for the purpose of leading
him up to the state of the text as it existed in the fourth
century, would he have made any real advance in the criticism
of the sacred volume? Is it not quite evident, even from the

1 These are ὦ for Cod. Bezae, 6 for Cod. Laud. 35, f for Paul. Cod. D, ff for

Paul, Cod. E (whose Latin translation is cited independently, see p. 133), g for
Paul. Cod, G,

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 3843

authorities contained in his notes, that copies in that age varied
as widely—nay even more widely—than they did in later times?
that the main corruptions and interpolations which perplex the
student in Cod. D and its Latin allies, crept in at a period
anterior to the age of Constantine? From the Preface to his
second volume (1850) it plainly appears (what might, perhaps,
have been gathered by an esoteric pupil from the Preface to his
first, pp. Vv, Xxxil), that he regarded this fourth-century text,
founded as it was on documentary evidence alone, as purely
provisional; as mere subject-matter on which individual conjec-
ture might advantageously operate (Praef. 1850, p. v). Of the
many examples wherewith he illustrates his principle we must
be content with producing one, as an ample specimen both of
Lachmann’s plan and of his judgment in reducing it to practice.
In Matth. xxvii. 28 for ἐκδύσαντες, which gives a perfectly
good sense, and seems absolutely required by τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ
in τ. 81, BDabe read ἐνδύσαντες, a variation either borrowed
from Mark xv. 17, or more probably a mere error of the pen.
Had the whole range of manuscripts, versions, and Fathers
been searched, no other testimony in favour of ἐνδύσαντες could
have been found save Cod. 157, 7272 of the old Latin, the Latin
version of Origen, and one codex of Chrysostom. Against
these we might set the vast mass of witnesses, exceeding those
on the opposite side by full a hundred to one; yet because Cod.
A and the Latin Vulgate alone are on Lachmann’s list, he is
compelled by his system to place ἐνδύσαντες in the text as the
reading of his authorities, reserving to himself the privilege of
removing it on the ground of its palpable impropriety: and all
this because he wishes to keep the “‘recensio” of the text
distinct from the ‘‘emendatio”’ of the sense (Praef. 1850, p. vi).
Surely it were a far more reasonable, as well as a more conve-
nient process, to have reviewed from the first the entire case on
both sides, and if the documentary evidence were not unevenly
balanced, or internal evidence strongly preponderated in one
scale, to place in the text once for all the reading which upon
the whole should appear best suited to the passage, and most
sufficiently established by authority.

But while we cannot accord to Lachmann the praise of wis-
dom in his design, or of over-much industry and care in the
execution of it (see Tischend. N. 7. Proleg. pp. cvii—cxil), yet

844 ON THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

we would not dissemble or extenuate the power his edition has
exerted over candid and enquiring minds. Earnest, single-
hearted, a true scholar both in spirit and accomplishments, he
has had the merit of restoring the Latin versions to their proper
rank in the criticism of the N.T., which since the failure of
Bentley’s schemes they seem to have partially lost. No one will
hereafter claim for the received text any further weight than it
is entitled to as the representative of the manuseripts on which
it was constructed: and the principle of recurring exclusively
to a few ancient documents in preference to the many (so en-
gaging from its very simplicity), which may be said to have
virtually origmated with him, has not been without influence
with some who condemn the most strongly his hasty and one-
sided, though consistent application of it.

17. We have now but to enumerate the labours of two
living critics (for Lachmann was lost to us in 1851), whose
signal services to theological learning have been often men-
tioned in these pages. Of those labours it will suflice to give
a brief summary in this place, reserving the respective systems
on whieh they revised the text for fuller discussion in
Chapter VII.

“ Novum Testamentum Graece. Ad antiquos testes denuo
recensuit, apparatum criticum omni studio perfectum apposutt,
commentationem isagogicam practexuit Ainoth. Frid. Const. Tis-
chendorf, editio septima:”’ Lipsiae, 1859, 2 Vols. 8vo. This is
beyond question the most full and complete edition of the
Greek Testament, containing the results of the latest collations
and discoveries, and as copious a body of various readings as is
compatible with the design of adapting it for general use:
though Tischendorf’s notes are not sufticiently minute (as regards
the cursive manuscripts) to supersede the need of perpetually
consulting the labours of preceding critics. His earliest work in
connexion with Biblieal studies was a small edition of the N. T.
(12mo, 1841) completed at Leipsic in 1840, which, although
greatly inferior to his subsequent works, merited the encourage-
ment which it procured for him, and the praises of D. Schulz,
which he so gratefully remembers. Soon afterwards he set out
on his first literary journey: ‘‘quod quidem tam pauper suscepi,”
he ingenuously declares, ‘‘ ut pro paenula quam portabam solvere

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 345

non possem;” and, while busily engaged on Cod. C, prepared
three other editions of the N.T., which appeared in 1843 at
Paris, all of them being booksellers’ speculations on which,
perhaps, he now sets no high value; one dedicated to Guizot,
the Protestant statesman, a second (having the Greek text placed
in a parallel column with the Latin Vulgate, and somewhat
altered to suit it) dedicated to Denys Affre, the Archbishop of
Paris, who fell so nobly at the barricades in June 1848. His
third edition of that year contained the Greek text of the second
edition, without the Latin Vulgate. It is needless to enlarge
upon the history of his travels, so well described by Tischendorf
in the Preface to his seventh edition; it will be enough to state
that he thrice visited England (1842, 1849, 1855), and thrice
went into the East (see pp. 76—7), where his chief discovery—
that of the Cod. Sinaiticus—was ultimately made. In 1849
came forth his second Leipsic or fifth edition of the N. T., being
a very considerable advance upon that of 1841, though, in its
earlier pages more especially, still very defective, and even as
a manual scarce worthy of his rapidly growing fame. The
sixth edition was one stereotyped for Tauchnitz in 1850, repre-
senting the text of 1849 slightly revised: the seventh, and by
far the most important, was issued in parts at Leipsic during
the four years 1856—9. It is indeed a monument of persever-
ing industry which the world has not often seen surpassed.

Yet it may truly be asserted that the reputation of Tischen-
dorf as a Biblical scholar rests less on his critical editions of
the N.T. than on the texts of the chief uncial authorities
which in rapid succession he has given to the world. In
1843 was published the New Testament, in 1845 the Old Tes-
tament portion of Codex Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (Cod. C, see
p- 95), 2 vol. 4to, in uncial type, with elaborate Prolegomena,
notes and facsimiles. In 1846 appeared Monumenta sacra
inedita, 4to, containing transcripts of Codd. F*LNW*Y® of the
Gospels, and B of the Apocalypse; the plan and apparatus of
this volume and of nearly all that follow are the same as in the
Codex Ephraemi. In 1846 he published the Codex Friderico-
Augustanus (see Ὁ. 27) in lithographed facsimile throughout :
in 1847 the “ Lvangelium Pulatinum ineditum” of the old Latin
(e, see p. 256): in 1850 and again in 1854 less splendid but good
and useful editions of the Codex Amiatinus of the Latin Vulgate

346 ON THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL

(am. see p. 264). Codex Claromontanus (D of St Paul), 1852
(see p. 131), was of precisely the same character as Cod. Ephrae-
mi, &e., but Anecdota sacra et profana, 1855, exhibit a more
miscellaneous character, comprising (together with other matter)
transcripts of O* of the Gospels, M of St Paul; a collation of
lo of the Acts (see p. 198), the only cursive copy he seems to
have examined; notices and facsimiles of Codd. ITPA tisch.?
(p. 181) of the Gospels, and the lectionaries tisch.™ (p. 220),
tisch.°* (p. 225). Next was commenced a new series of Monu-
menta sacra tnedita (to consist of five volumes), on the same
plan as the book of 1846. Much of this is devoted to codices
of the Septuagint version, to which Tischendorf has paid great
attention; but Vol. τ. (1855) contains transcripts of Codd. I,
ven.” (p. 220); Vol. π΄. (1857) of Codd. NPR; Vol. m1. (1860)
of Codd. PQW’, all of the Gospels. He is now engaged on
what he doubtless regards as his master-work, the edition of
Cod. καὶ (see pp. 28, 77), of which, and of other treasures (see pp.
127, 181, 220, 225) which he brought to St Petersburg from his
last Eastern journey, we have had a foretaste in the Notitia Codiets
Sinaitic’, 1860. To this long and varied catalogue must yet be
added exact collations of Codd. EGHKMUX Gospels, EGH
Acts, FHL of St Paul, all made for his editions of the N.'T.

The consideration of the text of Tischendorf’s editions of
1849 and 1859 will be resumed in Chapter vit. To the general
accuracy of his collations every one who has followed him over
a portion of his vast field can bear and is bound to bear cheerful
testimony. For practical purposes his correctness is quite
sufficient, even though one or two who have accomplished very
much less may have excelled in this respect some at least of
his later works. By the unflinching exertions and persevering
labour of full twenty years Constantine Tischendorf has well
earned—and long may he live to enjoy—the name of THE FIRST
BIBLicAL CRITIC IN EUROPE.

18. “ The Greck New Testament, edited from ancient autho-
rities; with the various readings of all the ancient MSS., the
ancient versions, and earlier ecclesiastical writers (to Eusebius
inclusive); together with the Latin version of Jerome, from the
Codex Amiatinus of the sixth century. By Samuel Prideaux
Tregelles, LL.D.” Ato.

EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 347

The esteemed author of the unfinished work of which the
above is the full title, first became generally known as the
editor of The Book of Revelation in Greek, edited from ancient
authorities; with a new English Version, 1844: and, in spite of
some obvious blemishes and defects, his attempt was received in
the English Church with the gratitude and respect to which his
thorough earnestness and independent views justly entitled him.
He had arranged in his own mind the plan of a Greek Testa-
ment as early as 1838, which he announced on the publication
of the Apocalypse, and now set himself vigorously to accomplish.
His fruitless endeavour to collate Cod. B has already been men-
tioned (p. 90), but when on the continent in 1845—6 and again
in 1849—50 he thoroughly examined all the manuscripts he
could meet with, that fell within the compass of his design.
In 1854 he published a volume full of valuable information, and
intended as a formal exposition of his critical principles, intituled
An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament:
in 1856 he re-wrote, rather than re-edited, that portion of the
Rey. T. Hartwell Horne’s well-known Introduction to the Cri-
tical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures which relates
to the New Testament, under the title of An Introduction to
the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, ἄς. In 1857
appeared the Gospels of SS. Matthew and Mark, as the First
Part of his Greek New Testament (pp. 1—216); early in 1861
the Second Part, containing SS. Luke and John (pp. 217—488),
with but a few pages of ‘“ Introductory Notice” in each. Every
one who venerates the spectacle of time and substance freely
bestowed in the best of causes, without the prospect or indeed
the possibility of earthly reward, will grieve to know that the
further prosecution of his opus magnum is for a while suspended
by Dr Tregelles’ serious illness.

Except Cod. ἘΞ (which is yet in the press: see pp. 112, 126)
this critic has not edited in full the text of any document, but
his renewed collations of manuscripts are very extensive: viz.
Codd. EGHKMN*RUXZIA 1. 33. 69 of the Gospels; GH 1.
13. 31. lo“ of the Acts; DFLM 1. 17. 37 of St Paul, 14 of
the Apocalypse, Am. of the Vulgate. Having followed Tre-
gelles through the whole of Cod. 69 (Act. 31, Paul. 387, Apoc.

1 A pamphlet of 36 pages appeared late in 1860, called Additions to the Fourth
Volume of the Introduction to the Holy Scriptures, &c., by 5. P. T.

348 ON THE EARLY PRINTED, AND LATER CRITICAL, το.

14) I am able to speak positively of his scrupulous accuracy,
and in regard to other manuscripts now in England it will be
found that where Tischendorf and Tregelles differ, the latter is
seldom in the wrong. ΤῸ the versions and Fathers (especially
to Origen and Eusebius) he has devoted great attention. His
volume is a beautiful specimen of typography, and its arrange-
ment is very convenient, particularly his happy expedient for
shewing at every open leaf the precise authorities that are
extant at that place.

The peculiarity of his system is intimated, rather than stated,
in the title-page of his Greek N. T. ΤῈ consists in resorting to
“ancient authorities” alone in the construetion of his revised
text; and in refusing not only to the received text, but to the
great mass of manuscripts also, all voice in determining the true
readings. ‘This scheme, although from the history he gives of
his work (Account of Printed Text, pp. 153 &c.), it was appa-
rently devised independently of Lachmann, is in fact essentially
his plan, after those parts of it are withdrawn which are mani-
festly indefensible. Tregelles’ “ancient authorities’ are thus
reduced to those manuscripts which, not being Lectionaries,
happen to be written in uncial characters, with the remarkable
exception of Codd. 1. 33. 69 of the Gospels, lo“ of the Acts,
which he admits because they “ preserve an ancient text.” We
shall hereafter enquire (Chap. vil.) whether the text of the
N.T. can safely be grounded on a basis so narrow as that of

Tregelles.

In the course of the last ten or fifteen years the criticism of
the N. T. has been rapidly regaining its old place among the
favourite pursuits of the English clergy. Its progress is the
more hopeful because it has engaged the minds chiefly of men
yet in the prime of life, from whose zeal and matured energy
we may confidently look, in God’s good season, for further
instruction in this grave and divine study.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER V.

COLLATION OF THE COMPLUTENSIAN POLYGLOTT N.T. 1514,
WITH THAT OF ELZEVIR, 1624.

N.B. Ἢ prefixed to a Greek reading shews that it is at variance with the parallel
Latin Vulgate (see p. 293).

Marta. tit.t + ἅγιον (ante evay.). 1. 1. david (ste vv. 6 bis, 17
bis, 20). 6. σολομώνα. 15. tparbaw bis. II. 2. tov αστέρα av-
tov. 5. ovtws. 1]. teidov. IIL. 5. —7 prim. 8. καρπόν ἀξιον.
11. 1-- καὶ πυρί. 13. εἰς (pro ἐπὶ. IV. 7. πάλιν. γέγραπται.
10. -- οπίσω μου (post ὑπαγε). 12. παρεδωθη. 18. t—o ἰησοῦς.
Ὑ. 0. πινώντες. 12. ούτως (sic vv. 16,19). 17. νομήσητε. 19, δι-
dager prim. 22. γέεναν (non vv. 29, 30). 29. καὶ εκεί. 27. -- τοῖς
ἀρχαίοις. 28. αὐτήν (pro αὐτῆς). 44. τοις μισοίσιν. 45. τοις (ante
ουρανοίς). 47. Τφίλους (pro ἀδελφοὺς). ovtws. VI. 18. fin. πονηρού
+apnv'. 15. t+o ουράνιος (ante αφήσει). 18. fin.—ev τῷ φανερῷ.
24. tyapwva. 29. +0 (ante σολομών). 34. μεριμνήσητε. VII. 6.
δότε. 10. init.+ (aut si). 12. ούτως (non v.17). οὕτως (pro οὗτος:
hec). 14. Τί (pro ὅτι: Quam). VIII. 5. αὐτώ (pro τῷ ingot).
8. λόγω. 11]. ανακληθήσονται. 12. —o prim. 14. εἰσελθών. 15.
jin. ovtd. 17. ανέλαβε (accepit). [28. γεργεσηνών gerasenorum|.
IX. 5. toov. 13. αλλά. 17. αμφότερο. 18. - εἰς (ante ελθών).
27. dawd. 33. --ὅτι. 35. --ἐν τῷ λαῷ. 36. εσκυλμένοι (vexati: pro
ἐκλελ). X. 2. εισί (pro ἐστι). 4. —0 secund. 8. -- νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε

1 In exemplaribus grecorum post hee verba orationis dominice vz. Et libera
nos a malo: statim sequitur ότι cov ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεια και ἡ δύναμις και ἡ δόξα εἰς
τοὺς αιώνας. Id est. Quoniam tuum est regnum et potentia et gloria in secula. Sed
advertendum quod in missa grecorum postquam chorus dicit illa verba orationis
dominice, s (scilicet), Et libera nos a malo: sacerdos respondet ista verba supra dicta,
8. quoniam tuum est regnum, &c. et dicunt greci quod solus sacerdos potest pro-
nunciare illa verba et non alius. et sic magis credibile videtur quod ista verba non
sint de integritate orationis dominice: sed quod vicio aliquorum scriptorum fuerunt
hic inserta nam videntes quod publice dicerentur in missa crediderunt esse de
textu, et lz (licet) beatus chrisostomus in suis commentariis super Mattheum
home. 20. exponat ista verba tam quam si essent de textu: verisimiliter tamen
presumitur jam suis temporibus originalia in isto passu fuisse corrupta ex quo
nullus latinorum ét [etiam ?] ex antiquissimis interpretibus sive tractatoribus lega-
tur de his verbis aliquam fecisse mentionem.

350 COLLATION OF THE COMPLUTENSIAN

(habet Lat. ante leprosos). 10. tpaBdous. 12. fin. + λέγοντες. εἰρήνη
Tw olkw τούτω. 13. εἰσελθέτω (venict) 19. Aadyoere (pro -σητε).
25. βεελζεβούβ (-bub). [Steph. B, errore pro a]. απεκάλεσαν (voca-
verunt). οἰκειακούς. 28. φοβείσθε (pro -θῆτε). αποκτενόντων. 31.
troddw. 36. οικειακοί XI. 8. βασιλείων (regum). 10. εστίν. 16.
παιδίοις. ayopa. 17. ορχήσασθε. 21. χωραζίν (sic). βηθσαϊδά. XII. 3.
david. 6. tpeifov. 8. 1-- καὶ 13. tito εξηραμμένην έχοντι τὴν
χείρα. (ante éxrewov). απεκατεστάθη. 14. απωλέσωσιν. 21. t—ev.
23. 0 χριστός ο υἱός david. 24, 27 [βεελζεβούλ, at -bub]. 32. εάν (pro
ἂν prim). τω νυν (pro τούτῳ τῷ: hoc). 35. -- τῆς καρδίας. -- τὰ prim.+ra
(ante πονηρά). 36. ἀποδώσουσιν υπέρ (pro περὶ: de). [37. errat Mill.].
38. Τθέλωμεν. 42. σολομώνος bis. 43. οὐκ. 44. υποστρέψω (rever-
tar). 50. ποιήσει. εστί.. XIII. 8, σπείραι. [4. errat Mill.]. 13. ow-
ιούσιν. 14. -- ἐπ᾽ (in). 15. ἰάσομαι. 24. σπείραντι (qui seminavit). 27.
-τὰ. 38, συλλέξομεν (colligimus). 80. --τῷ, 32.+7dvrwv (post μείζον).
traredOciv. [33. ενέκρυψεν]. 40. καίεται (comburuntur). -- τούτου. 54.
ἐκπλήσσεσθα. XIV. 11. ty κεφαλή αυτού ἠνέχθη. 12. εξελθόντες
(venientes). 13. κατιδίαν (sic v. 23). 14. ew avtois (eis). 19, ava-
κληθήναι. -- καὶ secund. 31. καὶ ευθέως (-- δὲ. 36. +t Kav (ante po-
νον: vel). ΧΥ͂. 4. --σου. 12. τοι (ante ακούσαντες : errat Mull.). 14.
eprecowrat (cadent). 22. t+rs (post γυνή). david. 23. + αὐτώ (post
προσελθόντες : let (sic)). 27. εἰπε. 31. εδόξαζον (magnificabant). +
του (ante ισραήλ). 32. [npépas]. 34. Τ- αὐτώ (post eirov). 39. ανέβη
(ascendit). XVI. 1. υποδείξαι (ostenderet). 24. ακολουθήτω. 25,
Ταπολέσει (pro -η). 28. yedoovra. XVII. 1. κατιδίαν (sie v. 19).
14. αὐτόν (pro αὐτῷ secund.). 27. avaBaivovra (qui ascenderit).
XVIII. 4. ταπεινώσε. 6. [ἐπὶ]. 10. διαπαντός. 12. ενενήκοντα
ἐννέα, (sic). 13. ενενήκοντα evvea. 15. αμάρτη. 19. ΤΈαμήν (post
πάλιν). 25. Ταυτώ (pro αὐτοῦ prim.). 28. εἰ τι (pro ὅ,τι: quod).
29. 1--πάνται 30. adda. 35. ovtws. XIX. 1. + 7s (ante γαλι-
λαίας). 5. t+avtod (post πατέρα). 8. οὕτως, 9. — εἰ (nisi). γαμήσει.
12. ἐγενήθησαν. οὕτως. 13. προσηνέχθησαν. 19. + cov (post μητέρα).
26. fin. 1-- ἐστι. 28. [desunt puncta]. δώδεκα θρόνων. 29. οἰκίαν.
30. οι (ante ἔσχατοι secund.). XX. 2. ἕκαι συμφωνήσας (— δὲ).
8, -- τὴν. 5. ενάτην. 15. «(pro secund.: An). 17. κατιδίαν. 21.
Τευωνίμων (non v. 23) t+oov. 22. ty (pro καὶ: deest clausula in
Lat.). 26. Τέσται (pro ἔστω: sit). 27. έσται (pro ἔστω: erit). 30, 31.
avid. 34. σπλαχνισθεί. ΧΧΙ. 1. Τβηθσφαγή. 2. κατέναντι. tde-
δεμένον. 3. Ταποστέλλει. 7. Τεπεκάθισεν. 9. david (sie v. 15). 11.
tvalapér. 14. Τχωλοί και τυφλοί. 23. eav (pro dv). 25. διά τι.
28. {τις (ante eiye). εἶπεν. 29. απήλθεν. 39. Τεξέβαλον αὑτόν.
41. εκδώσετα. XXIL 1, capiti xx1 adjungit. πάλιν, 7. tKat ακού-
σας ο βασιλεύς + exetvos. 9. edv (pro av). 13. χείρας και πόδας.
19. προνήνεγκαν. 34. επιτοαυτό. 37. épy (pro εἶπεν: ait). 89.
Ταύτη. 42,43, 45. Sarid. 46. ydvvaro, ἐπερωτάν. XXIII. 3.
εάν (pro ἂν). 13, 14. ότι κατεσθίετε κιτιλ. ante ὅτι κλείετε κ.τ.λ.
21. Τκατοικήσαντ. 25. fin. αδικίας (immundicia). 30. tore εἰ
ἤμεθα (sic: at ἡμεν sequens). 36. 1: ὅτι (ante nba). travra
ταύτα. 37. amoxrévovoa. 39, amdpt. XXIV. 2. ταύτα πάντα.
-- μὴ secund. 3. κατιδίαν. υμίν. 5. πλανήσουσι. 9. + των
(ante Ovsv). 15. εστός. 17. tra (prot). 18, τὸ ἱμάτιον,

POLYGLOTT, 1514. ool

20. --ἐν. 21. απαρχής. 31. + Kar (ante φωνής). 33. οὕτως. ταύτα
πάντα. 94. λέγω. 36. —rys.secund. XXV.1. [tfin. +et sponse Lat.}.
2. +a (ante πέντε secund.). ὃ. αυτών ( pro ἑαυτῶν prim.). 9. αρκέσει.
[13. tev κιτιλ]. 19. λόγον per αυτών. 24. etrev. 29. δοκεί ἔχειν
(pro ἔχε). 80. exBadere. 32. συναχθήσονται. 37. πινώντα. 40. απρο-
κριθείς. εῴοσον (sic v. 49). 44, — αὐτῷ. XXXVI. 4. δόλω
κρατήσωσι. 9. - τοις (ante πτωχοίς). 15. καὶ εγώ. 18. cori. 29.
ἀπάρτι. 35. απαρνήσωμαι. t+de (post ομοίως). 39. οὐκ. 40. ούτως..
48, trapadovs. εστίν. 52. fin. ἡ αποθανούνται. 54. ovtws. δδ. καθ-
ἡμέραν. 59. Τθανατώσωσιν αὐτόν. 63. -- τοῦ secund. 64. απάρτι.
70. απάντων (omnibus). 171. Ταυτοίς (pro τοῖς). 14. καταθεματίζειν
(detestari). 75. -- τοῦ secund. αλέκτωρα. ΧΧΥ͂ΤΙ. 1. ὅπως αὐτόν
θανατώσωσιν. 13. καταμαρτυρούσιν. 15. τω ὄχλω ένα. 17. (non vv.
16, 20, 21, 26). _BapaBav. 22. t+ovv (post λέγει). 33. 0 (pro ὃς).
39. βύχαν ἘΣ 1-- ἵνα πληρωθῇ κιτιλ. 41. ΤΈ και φαρισαίων (post πρεσ-
βυτέρων). ,. 42. πιστεύσομεν. tier 44. fin. αυτόν. 45. ενάτης. 40.
ενάτην. Τλιμά. τουτέστι. wa τι. 64. [Ἑνυκτός]. ome VEL TO,

19. 1 -- οὖν. Subser. τέλος του κατά ματθαίον ayiov ευαγγελίου.

Marc. ΤΈαγιον (ante evayy.). 1. [2. trou προφήταις esata pro-
phetal. 6. +o (ante wavvys). 9. +0 (ante unoovs). Tvalaper. 16.
ΤΈτου σίμωνος (ante βάλλοντας). 21. +7yv (ante συναγωγήν). εδίδα-
σκεν. 27. εαυτούς (se). 30. +rov (ante cipwvos). 33. συνηγμένη
(congregata). 35. t+o ιησούς (post απήλθεν). πνοσεύχετο. 37. Toe
ζητούσι. 38. εκεί (pro κἀκεῖ). 43. evOéws, 44. -- μηδὲν. αλλά. 46.
έξωθεν (foris). IL. 1. Τεισήλθε πάλιν. 4. [κράββατον] 7. οὕτω.
8. t+avrot (post οὕτως). 9. σου ἘΝ σου: tibi peccata tua). τον κράβ-
βατον σου. 12. ευθέως ηγέρθη. θελώναι. 18. διά τι. νηστεύουσιν
bis. 25. david. ἔσχεν. 20. Phabet cou III. 3. ro (pro τῷ secund.).
7. ἠκολούθησεν. -- τῆς secund. 9. προσκαρτερεί. 12. φανερόν αὑτόν.
18. tBaproropatov. 27. ουδείς δύναται (-- οὐ). fin. διαρπάση. 32.
T+ Kaw αι adehpat σου (ante ew). 35. Tov adeAdos. IV. 4. t—rod
οὐρανοῦ. 9. -- αὐτοῖς. 17. ευθύς. 18. 1-- οὗτοί εἰσιν secund. (sic
Elzev. 1633). 30. παραβαλούμεν. 31. κόκκον. 33. εδύναντο. 34. κα-
τιδίαν. 937. λέλαψ. ἐπέβαλεν (mittebat). 38. μέλλει. 40, οὕτως.
V. [1. tyad. geras.]. 98. μνήμασι. 5. ev τοις μνήμασι και εν τοις
όρεσι. 6. έδραμεν. 1]. προς Tw ὄρει (cirea montem). 16. Ἰδιυηγή-
σαντο δε (-- καὶ). 19. πεποίηκε (fecerit). 29. fin. Wynne: 40. πάν-
tas (omnibus). vi I. 2. 1-ὅτι. 8. παρήγγελεν. 9. ενδύσησθε (in-
duerentur). 11. εάν (pro ἂν). 13. teééBadov. 15. --ἢ 16. --ὖ
17. -- τῇ. 23. -- με. 25. εξαυτής. 31. κατιδίαν (sic v. 32). ευκαίρουν.
33. -- οἱ ὄχλοι. ήλθον (pro συνῆλθον: pervenerunt). 37. Tédyvapiwv
διακοσίων. 44. -- ὡσεὶ. 53. γεννησαρέτ (genesareth). Vil. 6. waias.
13. παραδώσει. 18. ovtws. 22. ασέλγειαι. 25. --οΟὀὐτῆς. 26. σύρα
φοινίκισσα (syrophenissa). εκβάλη. 32. μογγιλάλον. 33. ἐπιλαβόμενος
(apprehendens). κατιδίαν. Ὑ111. 1. παμπόλου. 2. [ημέρας]. 3. νήστις.
ἥκασι. 13. --τὸ prim. Jungit vv. 18, 19. 19. κλασμάτων πλήρεις.
22. βηθσαϊδά. 24. --ὅτι et ὁρῶ (sic Hlz. 1633). 25. ανέβλεψε (wideret).
34. ακολουθείν (pro ἐλθεῖν). 35. την εαυτού ψυχήν. 38. — av. IX. 2.
-- τὸν tert. xatidiav. 6. λαλήσει. έμφοβοι (eaterriti). 8. ειμή (pro
ἀλλα). 16. εαὐυτούς. 19. efrev (pro λέγει: dixit). εωσπότε bis, 22.
Ἔτο (ante up). το ὕδωρ. 27. τῆς χειρός αυτού (-- αὐτὸν prim.). 28.

352 COLLATION OF THE COMPLUTENSIAN

κατιδίαν. 37. {παιδίων τοιούτων. ovy. 38. 1-- ἐν. 40. υμών bis.
41. --τῷ. 42. εάν (pro αν). --τούτων (past μικρών) sie. X. 1. Και
εκείθεν. 2. -- οἵ. επηρώτων. 6. fin. Ὑ- και εἰπεν. 17. τις (pro εἷς).
21. --τοῖς. 24. -- τοῖς secund. 25. ΤΈ γαρ (ante éori). Τεισελθείν
(pro διελθεῖν). 27. --τῷ prim. 28. Τήρξατο de (-- κα). 29. ἕκαι
αποκριθείς (-- δὲ). + €vexev (ante του evay.). 51. -- οἱ 32. αυτών (pro
αὐτοὺς). 43. οὕτως. υμών διάκονος. 44. εάν (pro ἂν). 47. david (sic
ν. 48). 51. ραβουνί (sic). 52. Τηκολούθησε. XI. 1. Τβηθσφαγή.
3. Ταποστέλλει. 5. εστώτων. 10. david. 11. -- καὶ secwnd. 14. μη-
Seis. ayn. 17. veo. 18. απολέσωσιν. 22. +0 (ante ιησούς). 28.
πιστεύσε. 24. αιτήσθε. 29. και εγώς 952. αλλ (-- ἐὰν: si) sic.
XII. 5. δαίροντες. αποκτένοντες. 7. προς αὐτούς (adinvicem). 13.
--τῶν secund. 20. 1-- οὖ. 23. 1-- οὖν. 25. εκγαμίσκονται. 27. 0
θεός θεός νεκρών αλλά ζώντων (deus semel tantum Lat.) 28. Ὁ -- αὐτοῖς.
[28, 29. πασών] 92. 1-- Θεός. 959. -- τῶν secund. 35, 36, 37. oot
36. --τῷ prim. et secund. λέγει (pro εἶπεν secund. : dixit). 37.
(multa). 39. πρωτοκλησίας. 41. Τέβαλον. 43. είπεν (pro λέγει: a);
t βαλλόντων (qui miserunt). XII. 1, +x (post es). 2. αποκριθείς ο
ιησούς. ὃ. κατιδίαν. 4. ταύτα πάντα. 9. Jungit συν. et dap. 14. εστός.
15. -- τὴν. 28. ὅταν dy ο κλάδος αυτής (-- ἤδη: cum jam ramus ejus).
52, -- τῆς ϑ8εουηί. -- τω (ante ουρανώ). XIV. 6. fin. εν ἐμοι (in me).
7. evroujoat. 8. ἔσχεν. 9. εάν (pro av). 12. Τετοιμάσομεν. 15,
ανώγαιον. 22. - καὶ (ante εὐλογήσας). 28. υμών (sic X. 32: non
XVI. 7). 29. +ev σοι (ante αλλ). 80, Ἐσυ (ante σήμερον). πρινή.
31. απαρνήσωμαι. 32. προσεύξομαι. 33. -- τὸν secund. 34. fin.
ΤΈ μετ εμού. 45. xaipe (pro ραββί prim.) 49. καθημέραν. 51. Τηκο-
λούθησεν. 54. +70 (ante φῶς). 60. -- τὸ, 62. tex δεξιών καθήμενον.
64, t evoxov είναι. 66. Τπαιδίσκων (non -ὦν) 68. οὔτε (pro οὐδὲ).
72. το ρήμα ο. αλέκτωρα. XV. 8. tfin.+avros de ουδέν απεκρίνατο.
18, ΤΈ και λέγειν (ante χαίρε). o βασιλεύς. 22. byodyobav. 24. tdia-
μερίζοντα. 31. -- δὲ 33. ενάτης. 84. ενάτη. Τλιμά. 40. -- καὶ
secund. 48. +.kau (ante τολμήσας : et audacter). 44. τέθνηκεν. tin.
πάλαι απέθανε: jam mortuus esset (vid. Mill.). 40. aywpacas. ενείλισε.
XVI. 1. -- ἡ τοῦ. ηγώρασαν. αλείψωσι tov ιησούν. 8. --ταχὺ. 9. +0
ιησούς (ante πρωΐ. ΤΈ και (post ys) 18. βλάψη. 20. fin. t+ αμήν.
Τέλος του κατά μάρκον αγίου εὐαγγελίου.

Luc. Προοίμιον του αγίου λουκά εἰς τὸ αυτού ευαγγέλιον. I. 2. πα-
ρέδωσαν. Post ν. 4 legitur To κατά λουκάν ἅγιον ευαγγέλιον CaP. 1.
[5. tpassim. —er.]. 25. ovtws. 26. Τναζαρέτ. 27. david (sie vv.
32, 69). 35. τ εκ σου (ante dywov). 36. γήρει. 44. Τεσκίρτησε το
Boks ev ἀγαλλιάσει. 64. ΤῸ διηρθρώθη (ante και ελαλει). πρῶ
tvalaper (sic vv. 39, 51). david bis (sic v. 11). 5. εγγύω (pregnante).
ἃ, +7as (ante φυλακάς). 12. -- τῇ. 15. ἄάνθωρποι. ++ εἰς (post éws).
20. υπέστρεψαν. 21. tavrov (pro τὸ παιδίον). [22. avrys: 6718].
25. tyv ayov. 36. φροφήτις. 37. Ταυτή. ογδοηκοντατεσσάρων. 39.
εαυτών. 40. fin. avrov. IIL. 1. πέντε και δεκάτω. t+Anoaviov. αβιλι-
vis. 2. Τεπι ἀρχιερέως. 19. του αδελφού avrov φιλίππου. 22. ευδό-
knoa. 33, 1--ὁ ἰησοῦς. [desune puncta). 27. Τιωανάν, sic (jo-
hanna). 33. [αμιναδάβ!. εσρώμ. 34, + Ocppa. 35, Ἰσερούχ. IVs 1.
it πνεύματος αγίου. 4. --ὁ. 7. ἐμού. πάσα. 8. — γὰρ. 9. -- .
1]. 1--Ἵὕὦἷτ. 14. κατ (pro καθ). 16. Τναξζαρέτ. 18, είνεκεν. evay-

POLYGLOTT, 1514. 353

γελίσασθαι. 25. —8% 27. t+e€ (ante avrav). 29. -- τῆς secund,
35. -- τὸ secund. 38. πενθερά δε (-- ἡ). [40. ἐδύνοντος : cum ocer-
disset]. V. [1. Ἐγεννησαρέτ]. 6. ἔπλήθος ἰχθύων. 7. συλαβέσθαι.
8. γόνασιν ιησού. 19. -- διὰ (qua parte). 29. -- ὁ. 30. -- των (ante
τελωνών). 36. 1-- ἐπίβλημα secund.). VI. 8. david. 6. -- καὶ prim.
7. -- αὐτὸν. t+avrov (post θεραπεύσει). 9. υμάς: Τὶ (vos si licet). fin.
Ταποκτείναι. 10. efrev αὐτώ (-- τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ). ovtws. 22. ἔνεκεν. 23.
_xdpyre. 26. - ὑμῖν. είπωσιν υμάς. 1-- πάντες. 27. αλλά. 28. t— καὶ.
94. -- οἵ, 8. οἱ wot ὑψίστου. WII. 2. έμελλε. [4. παρέξει: prestes |.
6. twov υπό την στέγην. 7. add. 9. ovte. 12. ἕκαι αυτή. — iv
(post txavos). 16. πάντας (omnes). 19. ἔπεμψεν. 24. ὕτοις ὄχλοις
(- πρὸς). 31. 1-- εἶπε δὲ ὁ Κύριος. 34. φίλος τελωνών. 44. της (pro
τοῖς). [48. toov: tibi]. VIII. 5. εαυτούὄ. 15. fin. t+ ταύτα
λέγων eduivet, ο έχων ὦτα axovew axovérw. 18. eav (pro av) bis. 19.
εδύναντο. [20. treydvtwv]. 24. επιστάτα semel tantum. 29. παρήγ-
γελλε. 94. γενόμενον. [Ταπελθόντες]. 38. τὰ δαιμόνια εξεληλύθει.
43. Τιατροίς (-- εἰ). 49. Ἐ:1δὲ (post ert). 51. και τιωάννην και ιάκω-
Bov. IX. 5. εάν (pro ἂν). 7. από των (ρ7Ὸ εκ: a). 9. --ὁ 10.
κατιδίαν. 13. Τιχθύες δύο. Ταγοράσομεν. 15. οὕτως. 20. -- ὁ. 30.
1-- καθ᾽ ἡμέραν. 24. εάν (pro ἂν prim.). 21. εστώτων. 28. -- τὸν.
[tow : και Lak. J. 33, μίαν pooe. 36, εωράκασι. 38. επίβλεψαι.
40. εκβάλωσιν. 41. trov υἱόν σου ὦδε. 47. παιδίον. 49. — Ta.
54. εποίησεν. 60. διάγγελε. 62. to ιησούς προς αὐτόν. ἄρωτρον.
X. 2. εκβάλη. 4. βαλλάντιον. 0. -- μὲν. --ὦ 11. -- τὸν secund.
13. χωραζίν. 19. Ταδικήση. 20. -- μᾶλλον. 22. init. T+ και στρα-
φείς προς τους μαθητάς εἴπε. μοι παρεδόθη. 23. κατιδίαν. 32. αντι-
παρήλθε. 34. -- αὐτὸν secund. 35. ὅτι. 80. Ἱπλησίον δοκεί σοι.
89, trov λόγων. 41. to ιησούς είπεν αὐτή (dixit illi dominus).
ΧΙ. [2. tron cum Lat.]|. 6. 1-- pov. 8. Τόσον. 11. δώσει (pro ἐπι-
δώσει prim.). ἡ (pro εἰ: aut) 12. αἰτήση. 13. Ἰδώματα αγαθά.
[15. ste vv. 18, 19. 1-- οὐλ]. 17. τα διανοήματα αυτών. μερισθείσα
(divisum). 18. ἐμερίσθη (divisus est) 24. ευρίσκων. 25. ελθών.
27. tkae eyevero. 29. εστίν. 31. σολομώνος bis. 90. [κρυπτήν.
αλλ. 84. -- καὶ prim. 44. -- οἵ secund. 53. tovvéxew (insistere).
δ4. 1-- καὶ ΧΤ]. 1. Ἡπρώτον. προσεχ. (deest πρώ. Lat.). 3. ταμιείοις
(non v. 24). 4. αποκτενόντων. 7. troddo (ef. Mtt. x. 31). fin.
+upes. 8. tev eavto. 11]. Ταπολογήσεσθε. 18. γενήματα. 20.
ἄφρον. 88. βαλλάντια. 38. ούτως. 39. -- ἂν secund. 47. Ταυτού
(pro ἑαυτοῦ: sui). 53. ἐπί(ργο ἐφ᾽). δ4. ούὐτως. 56. του ουρανού και τῆς

ns. 58. Jungit ev rn οδώ cum praeced. βάλη σε. 59. τον (pro τὸ).
XIII. 6. ζητών καρπόν. 7. ove. [8. κόπρια]. 11. ασθενίας (non
v. 12). 15. ὑποκριταί. 19. ov (pros). 20. init. t—Kat, 21. ἐκρυ-
wev. 28. towerbe. 29. -- ἀπὸ secund. 34. αποκτέννουσα. T+ επι-
συνάγει (post dpvis). 35. λέγω δε (-- ἀμὴν). XIV. 4. απέλυσεν. 10.
ἀνάπεσε. 15. Τάριστον. 18. απομιάς. 21. τυφλούς Kar χωλούς.
20. Ταυτού (pro ἑαυτοῦ prim.). είναι μαθητής. 27. Τείναι pov. 28. +0
(ante θέλων). 32. Ἱπόρρω αυτού XV. 4. ἐνενήκοντα εννέα (sic v. 7).
7. οὕτως (ste v. 10). 20. tavrov (pro ἑαυτοῦ). [20. -- αὐτοῦ]! XVI. 4.
Ἱμεταστώ. 9. Τεκλείπητε (defeceritis). 15. tfin. nv: errat Millius.
19. καθημέραν. 26. ένθεν (pro evredOev: hine). XVII. 1. - του (ante
py). 4. t-érioe 7. ἀνάπεσε. 9. t—attd. 10. ovtws. Τοφειλομεν.

9
23

854 COLLATION OF THE COMPLUTENSIAN

17. ewe. 21. 1--ἢ. 22. Τ- καὶ (ante πρὸς). 23. t—7 (et). 24. υπου-
pavov bis, --καὶ 26. --τοῦ prim. +rov (ante wor). 54. —o prim.
35. —9 prim. [36. habet]. 37. -- και (ante οἱ αετοῦ. XVII. 3. 1--τις.
5. υποπιάζη. 7. tromon. 8. init. - ναι (autem). 9. --καὶ prim.
14. yap εκείνος (ab illo). 28. —0. 33. try τρίτη ἡμέρα. 38. david
(sic v. 39). XIX. 4. Ἱπροσδραμών. συκομωρέαν. —dv (inde). έμελλε.
7. πάντες. 10. ζητείσαι. 15. +?—Kal secund. 23. trois τραπεζίταις
(pro ἐπὶ τ. tp). Τελθών eyo. 29. tBybodayy. 47. καθημέραν.
48, Ἱποιήσουσν. XX. 5. 1--οὗν. 9. 1--τις. 19. 1-- τὸν λαόν.
28. μωυσής. 31. Τεπτά ov καπέλιπον (-- καὶ). 35. εκγαμίζονται (non
v. 34: errat Millius). 37. μωυσής. «κύριον (sic Lat.). 41, 42, 44.
david. XXII. 2. tra και. 3. αὐτὴ ἡ πτωχή. 6. επί λίθον. 16. tar
συγγενών και φίλων και αδελφών. 26. t+ev (ante τη οἰκουμένη. 34. ,
βαρηθώσιν. 36. 1--ταῦταις. XXIT. ὃ. --ὁ. 9. Τετοιμάσομεν. 12. ανώ-
γαιον. 18, γενήματος. 20. οὐκ. 30. Τκαθίσεσθες 34. Τφωνήση.
35. βαλλαντίου. 36. βαλλαντίον. trwdryjce. tayopdoe. 44. υδρώς.
45. 1-- αὐτοῦ. 47. αὐτούς (pro αὐτῶν). fin. Τ-- τούτο yap σημείον δε-
δώκει αὐυτοίς. ov αν φιλήσω, αυτός εστίν. 52. προς (pro ἐπ. 53. καθ-
ἡμέραν. 54. --αὐτὸν secund. (-- καὶ εἰσήγαγον αὐτὸν Lat.). 60. --ὁ
(ante αλέκτωρ). 66. Ταπήγαγον (duwerunt). fin. αυτών. XXIII. 8.
ter. (pro τι). 12. —o secund. 18. πάμπληθή. 25. t—avrois. 26.
--τοῦ prim. 38. +7 (ante ἐπιγραφή). 44. evdryns. 51. --καὶ (post os).
54, 1--καὶ secund. 55. —xat prim. XXIV. 1. βαθέως. 4. tavdpes
δύο. [12. desunt puncta]. 18. 1--ἐν prim. 24. οὕτως. 27. fin.
εαυτού. 36. καὶ (ante αυτός :--καὶ αὐτὸς Lat.) 42. μελισσείου.
[43. tnon cum Lat.). 40. οὕτως bis. Τέλος του κατά λουκάν αγίου
ευαγγελίου.

To κατά ιωάννην ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον. JOHANN. I. 18, μονογεννής.
28, βηθανία (pro Βηθαβαρᾷ. 40. 1-- δὲ 43, Ἐμεσώαν.---ὁ. 44.
ο τησούς transfert in locum ante ἀκολούθει. 40. -- τοῦ. Τναζαρέτ: sic
v.47. 49. -o. 52. ἀπάρτι. I. 5. ὅτι, λέγε. 15. toyowiov.
17. Τκαταφάγετα. 19. --ὁ 22. “τῶν (ante νεκρών). [tavrois].
23. τοῖς (ante ιεροσολύμοις). III. 5. --ι 6. γεγεννημένον bis.
10. —o, 23. Τσαλήμ. [25. ιουδαίων]. 31. fin. εστί 36. +297
( post operat). [tpeve’]. LV. 1. moods (pro Κύριος). 3. Ταπήλθεν
(--πάλιν). 5. --τῆς. συχάρ. ov (prod). 13. --Ὃ prim. 14. διψήσει.

15. ἔρχομαι (veniam). 20. εν τω dpe τούτω. 25. Ὑμεσίας. 51.
Τ- αυτού (post μαθηταί): sic v. 591, 35. οὐκ. Ὑ--ἔτι. τετράμηνος.
41. {εἰς αὐτόν (post ἐπίστευσαν. 40. Ἱπάλιν o τησούς (iterum

tantum). 47. Ταυτόν (pro αὐτοῦ). 50. +0 (ante moods secund.).
V. 1. +n (ante copry). 2. Τέστη. 4. εταράσσετο to (movebatur).
5. τριακονταοκτώ. 7. βάλη. 21. ovtws. 35. πρὸς wpav αγαλλιαθήναι.
40. μωσε. VI. 6. ἡἥμελλεε 8. -—o. 15. taddAw ανεχώρησεν.
24. --καὶ prim. [28. trowper], 29. —0 37. Τεκβάλλω. 39. αλλ.
45, —rov. Τακούων. 52. οἱ ιουδαίοι προς αλλήλους, 58. ΤΈμου
(post τρωγων). 65. ἔλεγεν. 70. 1--ὁ ingots. 17]. ἐμελλε. VIT.
12. 1--δὲς 10 t+ovr (post ἀπεκρίθη). 21. --ὁ 26. -- αληθῶς secund.
27. ἔρχηται. 29. --δὲ (tdeest glossa Latina). 31. --τούτων. 32,
Τυπηρέτας οἱ φαρισαίοι και ot ἀαρχιερείς. 33. t—avrois. 38, ρεύσουσιν.
39. -4ἐ 41. 1-δὲ 42, david bis, ὙΠ1Π,θ 8, (Nullum suspicionis

vestigium). επί μοιχεία κατειλημμένην. 4. Τταύτην evpomev επαυτοφόρω

POLYGLOTT, 1514. 355

μοιχευομένην. 5. Τ-ημών (ante μωσής). 1--ἡμῖν. 6. tKatnyopiav
κατ. fin. t+pyn προσποιούμενος. 9. [thabet και υπό K.7.A.]. καθείς.
jim. tovoa, 10. t-y γυνή. 11. από του νυν (ante μηκέτι). 12.
avtois ο τησούς. Ἱπεριπατήση. 14. ἡ ποὺ (pro καὶ που secund.).
25. ότι. 99. Τεποιείτε (-. ἂν: facite). 44. +rov (ante πατρός). 52.
γεύσηται. [59. οὕτως: non cum Lat.]. TX. 3. --ὁ, 10, toov (pro
σοι). 15. ἐπέθηκε μοι επί τους οῤφθαλμούς. 17. λέγουσι ovy. 20. ++de
( post ἀπεκρίθησαν) 21. περί eavrov. 26. ανέωξε. 28, 1-- οὖν. 29.
μωσεί, ἐστι. 36. {- καὶ (ante τις). 40. υμείς errore. X. 8. --πρὸ
ἐμοῦ. 12. ovy prim, 22. - τοῖς. 23. σολομώνος (—Tod). XI. 7. Ἑαυτού
(post μαθηταίς). 9. -- ὅ. Τώραι eat, 15. αλλά. 19, -- τὴν (ante μάρ-
θαν). 20. --ὁ 21. --ἡ. 24. -ἡ (ante μάρθα). 32. Ταυτού εἰς τους
πόδας. 45. Τόσα (prod). 48. ούτως. 52. διασκορπισμένα. συναγάγει.
εφραίμν. ὅθ. μετά. ΧΙ]. 2. ανακειμένων συν. 5. διά τι. 0.
έμελλεν. 13. --ὁ secund. 14. εκάθησεν. ex avtd. 16. to πρώτον.
17. ore (pro or). 30. —o. 31. —rovrov prim. 34. - ὅτι secund.
50. οὕτω. XIITL 8. ovy. 15. δέδωκα. 19. απάρτι. 30, 31. Την
de νυξ ore εξήλθε (—ovv). 590. wee (ante πυπαγω). με (pro μοι prim).
37. —0. 38. Τφωνήση. XIV. . ἀπάρτι. [1]. cum Elz jos WLS, ore
22. ΤΊ και (ante 7). 23. —o. 30, t+—rovrov. 31. ovtws. XV. 4.
ovTos (pro οὕτως). 6. το (Mite πυρ). 16. ὅτ. XVI. 3. 1- ὑμῖν.
7. +eyo (ante py). 15. tropBaver (non v. 14). 16. --ἐγὼ, 99,
Τέχετε (pro ἕξετε. XVII. 2. δώσει. [7. eyvoxay], 11. tw (pro os).
πιστευόντων. 24. δέδωκας (pro ἔδωκας). II. 8 —o.
11. t—cov. 20. Ἱπάντοτε (pro πάντοθεν : omnes). 24. 1-- οὖν (et).
25. t+ovv (post npvyoaro). 28. πρωΐ. 32. έμελλεν. 36. --ὁ 38.
εξήλθεν. 40. 1--πάλι. XIX. 6. - αὐτόν (post σταύρωσον secund.).
7. --τοῦ. 11]. --ὁ 12. eavrov. 13. [trovroyv tov λόγον) γαβαθά.
“16. tfin. ἤγαγον. 20. to τόπος τῆς πόλεως. 26. We (non v. 27).
27. T+ εκείνος (post μαθητής). 30. ἔλαβεν. [91. εκείνη]. 34. ευθέως.
35. εστίν ἢ μαρτυρία αυτού. 90. +am (ante αυτού). 38. 1-- δὲ. -- ὁ
prim. 39. το πρώτον. ws. 40. t+ev (ante οθονίοι). XX. 14. —o.
15. ἔθηκας avrov. 16. tpafovvi. 28. —o prim. 29. 1-- θωμᾶ.
91. —o prim. XXI. 3. Τενέβησαν. 5. μήτι. 11]. πεντήκοντα τριών.
21. --ὄ. Τέλος του κατά ιωάννην αγίου εὐαγγελίου. Sequuntur ἀποδημία
τοῦ ἁγίου παύλου τοῦ ἀποστόλου: Evbadiov διακόνου περὶ τῶν χρόνων:
ὑποθέσεις 7 ρἰδίοϊαγηνην omnium: Prefatio sancti hieronymi presbyteri
in onmes E'pistolas beati Pauli Apostoli: Prologus specialis in ep. ad
ftom.

H tov αγίου παύλου προς ρωμαίους ἐπιστολή. Roma. Ἰεν 9.
προεπαγγείλατο. 3. david. 10. είπως. 13. τινά καρπόν. — καὶ secund.
15. ovrws. 26. παραφύσιν. 27. 1-- τε. ἄρρενες (prim.). 32. συνευ-
doxovow. II. 5. ΤΈκαι (ante δικαιοκρισίας). 7. επιζητούσι (quae-
rentibus). 17. init. a δε. καυχάση (non v. 23). 29. — τοῦ. Til
10. t—or. 26. Τιησούν (iesu api) IV. 4. --τὸ, 6. david.
7. αφείθησαν. 8. t—ov (non). 12. τῆς πίστεως τῆς εν TN aKpo-
Bvoria. V. [1. Τέχομεν]. ὃ. -ἡ. 19. +7w (ante κόσμω. 14.
μωυσέος. 15. ovtws (non vv. 18, 19, 21, VI. 4,11). VI. 6. Τυμων.
17. Τυπακούσετε (errat Millius). 19. οὕτω. VII. 1. εφόσον. 2.
Ἔτου νόμου (ante του avdpos). 4. t+avdpi (ante erépw). 6. Ταποθα-
vovtes (mortis). 7. t+ore (post epovpev). 9. Τέζησεν. 23. +ev (ante

23—2

356 COLLATION OF THE COMPLUTENSIAN

Tw νόμω secund.). ὙΠ1|. [1l. téua του: propter}|. 21. Jungit ex
ἐλπίδι cum praecedent. 23. tovotevalopev. 26. προσευξόμεθα.
Τυπέρ υμών. (errat Mill.). 28. +70 (ante ἀγαθόν). IX. 11. πρόθεσις
του Geov. 12. ἐρρέθη. 15. μωυσεί. 15. Ἔγαρ (ante βουλήματὴ. 26.
ἐρρέθη. 329. tinit.—Kai. 33. t+ ἐγώ (ante peli X. 1. τον (pro
tov). 5. μωυσής. 6. +77 (ante καρδία). 6, 7, 8. τουτέστιι 1].
++ ότι (ante ras). 19. μωυσής. trapalnru. ΧΙ. 7. τούτο. 9. δαυίδ.
10. σύγκαψον. 11. cornpia. 13. εφόσον. 14. exw. 19. —ot
21. μήπως. φείσετα. 30. ποτέ και vpeis. απειθία hic. 31. υμε-
τέρω. XII. ὅδ. καθείς. [1]. κυρίω]. XIII. 1. ὑπό (pro
ἀπὸ: a). 5. ανάγκη υποτάσεσθε. (errat Mill.). 9. 1-- οὐ ψευδομαρ-
τυρήσεις. 10. του (pro τῷ). ov κατεργάζεται. 11. 1--γὰρ. 14. ποι-
ἦσθε. XIV. 8. Ταυτών. 6. και (ante o εσθίων). 9. Τέζησεν.
11. ΤῈ επουρανιών και επιγείων και καταχθονίων (post γόνυ). 14. Ἐχρισ-
τώ (pro Κυρίῳ). αὐτου (pro ἑαυτοῦ). 15. απέθανεν. 22. σεαυτόν.
23. jin. 7 ee. A —yap. υμών. 4. Τ διά (ante τῆς παρακλ.).
7. υμάς. 8, χριστόν ιησούν. 9. --κύριε (post έἐθνεσι). 12. ελπιούσι.
14. taddovs. 17. +7ov (ante θεόν. 18. ΤῈ καὶ (ante λόγω: in).
23. επιποθείαν. 24. ισπανίαν. 26. paxedwrvia. 28. ισπανίαν. XVI.
[3. Ἱπρίσκιλλαν]. 5. ἐπαινετόν. μοι (mihi). 9. στάχην. 11. ηρωδί-
ωνα. 15, φιλολόγον. Τνηρέαν. 20. -- ἀμῆν. 27. - ᾧ. -- ἡ. [αμήν]. Sub-
script: τέλος τῆς προς ρωμαίους επιστολής: Sequuntur Prologus et
Argument. in 1 Cor.

H tov ayiov παύλου προς κορινθίους πρώτη ἐπιστολή. 1 Cor. 1.
9. trov κυρίου ἡμών ιησού χριστού. 18. -- ὁ prim. 29. καυχήσηται.
Ἔτου θεού (pro αὐτοῦ). 11. 1. καταγγέλων. ὅ. Τ᾿ ημών. 13. οἴδωμεν.
TILT. 1. υμίν λαλήσαι. = εδύνασθε. 4, λέγει. 11]. -- ὁ. [15. οὐτως].
ΤΥ. 11. γυμνιτεύομεν. 5. fin. -- χριστού. 7. ετύθη. 11. [η: ot
tn λοίδορος n a n serig te 13. εξαιρείτε (auferte).
Μιὰ: -. νι (pro ἔστων. i. 1--ἐν. 10. —ov secund. 14. ἡμᾶς. 16.
init t— VII. 4. ομοίος lpn v. 3). 5, ειἰμήτι. συνέρχησθε. 10.
Bioanal. 19. eort bis. 24. -τῷ: 29. --ὅτι. .ante το. οι
(ante €xovres). 33. 1--δὲ, 34. -μεμέρισται. (et divisus est). -- και (ante
ἢ γυνή). 35. evrdpedpov. 38. ποιή prim. 39. t—avris secund.
VILL. 8. Ἱπερισσεύωμεν (abundabimus). IX. 8. λέγω (pro λαλῶ).
9, vopw μωσέως. 10. --ὦὁ prim. 11. θερίσωμεν. 14. ούτως. 23.
συκοινωνός. 320. δαίρων. 27. ὑυποπιάζω. Χ. 2. μωυσήν. 7. ὥσπερ.
Ἔτου (ante φαγείν. ὃ. είκοσι τρείς. 14. διό. Τ αδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί.
ειἰδωλολατρίας. 19, Jungit, φημί or. 30, -- δὲ XI. 3, παραδώ-
σεις. 4. Τεαυτού κεφαλήν. 5. ξυρημένη. 9. εκκτίσθη. 10. διατούτο.
14. ἐστίν. 18. --τῇ. 19. tev υμίν αιρεσείς είναι. 22. τούτω, 27. +7ov
(ante αίματος). 32. +7ov (ante κυρίου. XII. 2. «τὅτε (post ori).
21. +0 (ante ofOadrpos). 23. ατιμότερα. 26. tovpracyyn. tovyxaipn.
XIII. 2. ουθέ. 3. ψωμίσω. 9. δε (pro γὰρ). PY NG,
διερμηνεύε.. 15. +7w (ante vot secund.). 26. γινέσθω. 29. 1-- δὲ,
31. - ἕκαστοι (post éva) 33. αλλά, 34. αὐτοίς. 35. εθέλουσιν.
Ἴ ἐστίν εν εκκλησία γυναιξί, 37. -- τοῦ. 39, t+ pov (post adedAdoi),

1 Ad καυθήσωμαι margo habet: In aliis exemplaribus grecis habetur καυχή-
σωμαι. Id est glorier, ut ait beatus Hieronymus super epistola ad galatas capit.
5. vide ibi,

POLYGLOTT, 1514. 357

XV. 2. je Karéyere,. 7. ἔπειτα (pro εἶτα). 15. 1- ημείς
(ante ψευδομάρτυρες). 23. +70v (ante χριστού). 27. δηλονότι. 28.
πάσιν. 30. t+xata (ante πάσαν). 31. [vperépay]'. 53. χριστά.
94. Τυμών. 39. -- σὰρξ tertium. 49. φορέσωμεν. XVI. 2. ότι. εάν
(pro ἄν). γίνοντα. 5. μακεδωνίαν bis. 11. εξουθενήσε. 16.
τιούτοις. Τέλος της προς κορινθίους πρώτης επιστολής.

Prol. Argum. ad 2 Cor. H tov αγίου παύλου προς κορινθίους δευτέρα
emioToAn. 2 Corintu. I. 5. + Tov (ante χριστού secund.). Ἱπερισσεύη. 0.
Trae ἡ Aris ημών βεβαία υπέρ υμών transfertur in locum post πάσχομεν,
εἰς παρακαλούμεθα κ. τ. λ. post posito: aliter Lat. 8. υμάς ( pro ἡμᾶς).
9. αλλ. 11. tin. υμών. 13. αλλή. 14. fin. ημών ιησού χριστού. 15.
ελθείν προς υμάς. + To (ante πρότερον). 16. {ελθείν (pro διελθεῖν). 20.
Ἔτου (ante θεοῦ). 21. Τυμάς συν ημίν. 23. οὐκ έτι. 11. 1. tev λύπη
προς υμάς ελθείν (in tristitia venire ad vos). 3. λύπην επί λύπη σχώ.
5. αλλά. 17. Τλοιποί (pro πολλοί. TIT. 3. αλλ. σαρκικαίς. 6.
αποκτένει. 7. μωῦσέος. 9. Ἱπερισσεύσει. 10. tov (pro οὐδὲ: nec).
13. potions. 14. or. 15. μωῦσής. IV. 4. tfin. -- του aoparov.
14. εξεγερεί. 16. εικαί. ἔσω (pro ἔσωθεν). Υ. 8. εἰγε. [4. εφ ὦ}
10. κομίση τε. ιδία (pro διὰ: propria). 12. αλλ. καυχήσεως. 16.
Ταλλά και νυν ουκέτι.- 17. τα πάντα καινά (malé Mill.). 19. θέμενος.
21. γενώμεθα. VI. [1ὅ. βελιάλ: —al: malé Mill.). VII. 6. t—o
Θεὸς. 7. αναγγέλων. ὃ. εικαί ter. 10. 1-- ἡ δὲ τοῦ κόσμου ad fin. vers.
11. +e (ante υμίν). 12. εικαί. ένεκεν ter. [caetera cum Elz.|. 16. -- οὖν.
VIII. 8. υμετέρας. 15. tw(proo) bis. 18. —0. 24. -- καὶ secund.
IX. 4. ἔλθωσιν. 5. ws (pro ὥσπερ). 10. [ puncta cum Elz.]. γενή-
ματα. 12. λειτουργείας. X. 9. δὲ (post wa). 10. taappyoia
(pro παρουσία). 12. συνιούσι. 16. vreperéxewa. ΧΙ. 1. ανείχεσθε.
1-- τι. τὴ αφροσύνη. 2. Τζήλω θεού. 4. ανείχεσθε. 9. πρωσανεπλή-
ρωσαν. 16. καγώ μικρόν τι. 20. δαίρει. 28. καθημέραν. 31. 1-- ἡμῶν.
XII. [1. teum Elz}. 12. κατείργασται. 13. eort. 14. - τούτο
( post τρίτον). + κατενάρκησα. adda. 20. Τέρις. 21. ταπεινώσει.
ΧΙΊΠΠ. 1. init. -ἰδού. 8. δύναται. 4. -- καὶ tert. ὅ. ειμήτι. -- ἄρα
(ante αδόκιμοι). 9. κατάρτησιν. 1]. - τῆς (ante εἰρήνης). 12. φιλή-
ματι αγίω. Τέλος τῆς προς κορινθίους δευτέρας επιστολής.

Sequitur ee (non Prol.) ad Galatas. (Sie etiam ad Eph.,
Phil. Coloss. 1, 2 Thess. 1, 2 Tim. Tit. Philem. Hebr.). Ἡ tov αγίου
παύλου προς γαλάτας eens Gauat. I. 4. περί (pro ὑπὲρ). 9.
υμίν (pro ὑμᾶς). 12. map. 14. + μου (post συνηλικιώτας). 16. ἔθνεσι.
11. 2. κατιδίαν. 6. tre (pro ποτε). +0 (ante θεός). συλλαμβάνει
(accipit). 10. -- δε (post μόνον). 12. συνίσθιεν. 19. συνυποκρίθησαν.
1-- καὶ ἐογέ. 14. ov (pro οὐκ secwnd.). TIT. 1. εβάσκηνεν (-- τῇ). 4. -- καὶ.
8. ἐνευλογηθήσονται. 10. εἰσίν bis. 11. Ἔτω (ante νόμω). 13. γινόμενος.
15. 1-- ἀδελφοὶ 10. ερρέθησαν. t—Kaisecund. t—cov. 19. Punet.

1 Margo habet: Per vestram gloriam: est modus jurandi in greco.

2.51, Margo habet; Alia litta greca habet πάντες μενουν κοιμηθησόμεθα addov-
πάντες αλλαγησομεθα. Id est omnes quidem igitur dormiemus: sed non omnes
immutabimur. Vide de hoc beatum Hieronymum in epistola ad Minerium et alex-
andrum de resurrectione carnis. [Compl. cum Elz.: Omnes quidem resurgemus:
sed non omnes immutabimur. Lat. |

358 COLLATION OF THE COMPLUTENSIAN

post ow. αχρισού. διαταγείσα (ordinata). 21. -- ἂν, 22. -- τὰ. πιστεύ-
ovew. 33. t—S& Τυπό νόμου (sub lege). 26. t—ydp. 28. ουδ
secund. 29. 1-- ὑμεῖς. του (ante xpiorov).—Kalt. IV. 3. οὕτως.
4, bev. 1 γεννώμενον (pro γενομ. prim.). fin. νόμους 0. ore (pro
ὅτι: quum). 7. addd. 17. vpas (pro ἡμᾶς). fin. ζηλούσθε. 23.
+ καὶ (proadrX). 26. εστίν bis, 29. οὕτως. 30, ἔκβαλλε. κληρονομήσει.
V. 1. +6 (ante χριστός). ηλευθέρωσεν. Srijxere (sic). 2. He. οφελήσει..
3. tin. ποιήσας (legis faciende). 7. ενέκοψε.ς 9. ζημοί (at ζυμή).
12. αποκόψωνται. 15. tyro vr. 17. αντίκεινται. 18. 1 από νόμου.
19. πορνία. 20. ειδωλολατρία. φαρμακία. 21. ἅπερ λέγω (pro ἃ προ-
λέγω). 2323. ἐστίν. 24. παθήμασιν. (Cap. VI. incipit cum V. 29).
25. στιχούμεν (errat Mill.) 26. γενώμεθα. + προσκαλούμενοι. WSL
1. Τπροσληφθή. 2. -- τοῦ. 13. περιτετμημένοι. Τέλος τῆς προς ya-
λάτας επιστολής.

H τοῦ αγίου παύλου προς εφεσιόυς επιστολή. ΕΡΗΕΒ. I. 10. --τε.
12. -- τῆς. 18. καρδίας (pro διανοίας). 20. “των (ante νεκρών). 23.
Ἔτα (ante πάντας. II. 21. --ἡ TIL. 1. 1--τῶν ἐθνῶν. 2. - καὶ
(post «tye: si tamen). 5. -- ἐν. fin. Ἐ-- αγίω. 0. συγκληρόνομα. 8.
1-- τῶν ἁγίων. 9. οἰκονομία (pro κοινωνία). IV. 4. ημών (pro ὑμῶν).
6. ἡμίν (pro ὑμῖν). 13. + καταντήσομεν. 16. ῬἘποιήται. 27. μήδε.
28, «ἰδίαις (ante χερσίν: suis). 32. Ὑχριστός (pro θεὸς ἐν χριστῷ).
fin. ημίν (protpiv). V. 21. χριστού (pro θεοῦ). 23. -- prim. 29.
αλλά VI. 2. Τεστί πρώτη ἐντολή. 5. —THs. 7. Ἕως (post
δουλευόντες). 9. τ καὶ (post υμών). 19. δοθή. [321]. habet πάντα:
errat Millius|. Τέλος τῆς προς εφεσιόυς επιστολής.

H τοὺ αγίου παύλου προς φιλιππησίους ἐπιστολή. PHILIPP. 1.16,
χριστού ιησού 7. τεν (ante τη απολογία)ῆ. 14. +7ov θεού (ante
λόγον). 33. Ἐ δε (pro γὰρ prim.). -- γὰρ secund. 30. είδετε. 11. 1.
tec τις σπλάγχνα. 4. tro ετέρων. 12. ++pov (post ὑπηκούσατε).
- ὡς, ΤῊ και (ante νυν. 14. topyys (pro γογγυσμῶν). 18. δε.
91, —rov. 23. εξ αυτής. 27. αλλά IIL. 3. Τθεού. 12. tfin
κυρίου mood χριστού. 19. —o. IV. 1. ούτως. [2. evodéiar].
3. init. var (etiam). 10. 1 φρονείτε (pro ἐφρ.). 12. και (pro δὲ),
15. 1-- δὲ, 23. 1-- ἡμῶν. Τέλος της προς φιλιππησίους επιστολής.

Η rov αγίου παύλου προς κολασσαείς ἐπιστολή. (Lat. + Colossenses).
Coross. I. [3. κολοσσαίς)]. 6. - καὶ αὐξανόμενον (ante καθώς). Τ. --καὶ.
12. «- θεώ και (ante πατρῇ. 14. -- διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ. 18. ἐστί
prim. -- ἧ. 30. -- τὰ prim. 27. --τοῦ. 28. -- πάντα ἄνθρωπον secund.
1-- τέλειον. 11. 4. πειθανολογία. 12. -- τῶν. 13. Ἐσυνεζωόποιησεν
υμᾶς. Τημίν (pro ὑμῖν). 14. ἤρεν. 17. -- τοῦ. 21. tym (pro μηδὲ)
bis, il, 12. οικτιρμού. 13. ἔχει. Τημίν (pro ὑμῖν). 16. χάριτι,.
17. ότι (sic v. 23). 18. -- ἰδίοις. 20. ev (pro τῷ: errant Steph. Mill.).
24. 1-- ὅτι. ἀπολήψεσθαι. IV. 1. παρέχετε. 3. t+ και (ante ἡμίν).
Τέλος της προς κολασσαείς επιστολής.

H tov αγίου παύλου προς θεσσαλονικείς πρώτη ἐπιστολή. 1 ΤΉΕΒΒ.
1. 3. αδιαλείπτως,. 5. 1-- ἐν tert, 8. --εν τη (ante αχαΐα). téxew ημάς.
9. ἔσχομεν. II. 2. -- καὶ 4. ούτως. 6. από (pro ἀπ). 8. Τημών
(pro ἡμῖν). 12. μαρτυρόμενοι. 14. τα αυτά. [15. npas}. 17. ἀπορφ.
20. -- ἡ secund. 111. 3. τὸ (pro τῷ). 6. ἀγαθήν... 7. Τημῶν (pro
ὑμῶν). 10. εκ περισσού. [V. 6. προείπομεν. ἡμίν. [8. ημάς :
errant Steph. ΜΠ}. 12. περιπατείτε. 13, θέλομεν. V. 8, Τ νιοί

POLYGLOTT, 1514. 359

(post ὄντες). 13. ex περισσού. 21. tdoxuyraovres. 24. tin. +7yv
ελπίδα υμών βεβαίαν. Τέλος της προς θεσσαλονικείς πρώτης επιστολής.

H του αγίου παύλου προς θεσσαλονικείς δευτέρα επιστολή. 2 THEss.
I. 7. ++ χριστού (ante ar). 9. -- τοῦ. 10. πιστεύσασι. II. 4. απο-
δεικνύοντα. 10. υμάς (pro ἡμᾶς). Τδιδούς. III. 4. παραγγέλομεν.
5. Ἔτην (ante ὑπομονήν). 6. παρέλαβον. 10. διαπαντός. 17. ούτως.
Τέλος τῆς προς θεσσαλονικείς δευτέρας επιστολής.

[Argument: 1 Tim.:....scribens ei a laodicia per tychicum diaco-
nem]. H τοῦ aytov παύλου προς τιμόθεον πρώτη ἐπιστολή. 1 Tim. 1.1.
Τ θεού πατρός και σωτήρος ἡμών ιησού χριστού (-- Κυρίου). 4. Τοικονο-
μίαν. 9. οιδώς. πατρολώαις. μητρολώαις. 12. Ἰενδυναμούντι. Ὑ--ιησού.
19. αλλά. 16. cers (primo). 17. μόνω, σοφώ. 1-- καὶ II. 5.
Τιησούς χριστός. 9. t+ αργυρίω (post πλέγμασιν). IIT. 2. [νηφάλιον].
11. [-Adovs]}. IV. 1. πλάνης. Sungit εν υποκρίσει, cum δαιμονίων.
6. χριστού prov. εκτρεφόμενος (enutritus). 11. παράγγελε. 12. γενού.
V. 7. παράγγελε. 10. ty (pro εἰ secund.). 14. t+ χήρας (ante
γαμεῖν. VIL 5. διαπαρατριβαί. 7. δηλονότι. 8. αρκεσθησώμεθα.
9. ανονήτου. 10. αποπλανήθησαν. 12. -- καὶ prim. 15. Ὑ δείξη.
16. 1--καὶ 17. παράγγελε. πάντα πλουσίως. Τέλος τῆς προς Τιμό-
θεον πρώτης επιστολής.

H tov αγίου παύλου προς Τιμόθεον δευτέρα ἐπιστολή. 2 Tim. 1. 1.
1-- ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ. Τυπιησὶέ vv. 3,4. 4. πλησθώ. ὅ. λωΐδη. [ευνίκη].
12. παρακαταθήκην. 14. παραθήκην (depositum vv. 12, 14). 10. ἐπαι-
σχύνθη. 11. 8. david. 19. κυρίου (pro χριστοῦ). 24, 25. Jungit
ανεξίκακον cum ev πραότητι. IIT. 2. -- οἱ. φυλάργυροι. ᾿ ἐγ ὺς ἢ
τίζοντες. --τὰ 8. οὕτω. 9. Τπλείστον. 11. εγένοντο. 7. εξηρτυ-
μένος. IV. 1. t+ pov (post κυρίου. 10, Τκρίσκης. τ ἄγαγε.
13. [φελ.}1. 18. επουρανίον. 19. πρίσκιλλαν. Τέλος τῆς προς τιμό-
θεον δευτέρας επιστολής.

H tov αγίου παύλου προς τίτον ἐπιστολή. Titus I. 6. ασωτείας.
11. Τοίκους όλους. 15. μεμιαμένοις (ογγαΐέ Mill.). 11. 5. βλασφη-
μείται. 7. fin. 1-- αφθαρσίαν. 8, ημών. [10. ημών! III. 8. -- τῷ.
Τέλος τῆς προς Τίτον επιστολής.

H του αγίου παύλου προς φιλήμονα ἐπιστολή. PHILEM. 6. + ἔργου
(ante αγαθού). tev ημίν. 7. [χαράν] 29. Ὑ-- ἰησοῦ. Τέλος της προς
φιλήμονα επιστολής.

᾿ Ἢ του αγίου παύλου προς εβραίους ἐπιστολή. Heer. I. 1. ἐσχάτου.
3. ἙΈ του θρόνου (post δεξιά). II. 1. μήποτε (ste EV ides: = 17).

IIL. 1. Τιησούν χριστόν. 2. μωῦσής. 8. μωῦσήν. ΝΑ . μωυ-
ons. 10. εἶπα. 13. Τεξ υμών τις. 16. μωυσέος. 17. ἔπεσον. 19. + BNE-
πωμεν. IV. 2. Τεκείνοι. συγκεκραμένους. 4, οὕτως. 7. δαυίδ.

ὃ, Ταυτός. 15. πεπειραμένον. V. 4. t—o prim.—o secund. Wile 9.
κρείσσονα. 14. “μήν. VII. 1. [-- τοῦ secwnd.}. ο( pro ὁ secund.).
a jin. t+Hev ὦ ὅτι και TOV αβραάμ προετιμήθη (6 capite Euthaliano).
5. εξεληλυθότες (quamquam et ‘pst eaterint). 14. μωῦσής. 20. καθό-
σον. 25. υπερεντυγχάνειν αυτών. VILL. 5. potions. Τποιήσεις.
6. τετύχηκε. t—Kal. 9. +pov (post επιλαβομένου. 11. Ἐπολίτην
(pro πλησίον). IX. 2 . [για]! ὃ. πεφανώσθαι. 9. τούτον (pro τὸν
secund.). 12. πο ἕνα, 14. ημών (pro ὑμῶν). 10. διατιθεμένου.
19. μωυσέος. -- τῷ. [22. errat Mill.]. 23. ἐπουρανία. fin. ταύταις. 27.
καθόσον. 28. οὕτω και. Χ. 2. [ἐπεί av]. 9. tro θέλημα σου, ο θεός

360 COLLATION OF THE COMPLUTENSIAN

pov. 10. t+o (ante da). -- τοῦ secund. 11. Ταρχιερεύς. 18. αὐτών
(pro τούτων. 28. μωῦσέος. 33. αναστρεφωμένων. 34. — ἐν prim.
(vos habere). 39. Τ--ψυχῆς. ΧΙ. 3. Τεκφαινομένων. 4. ἰλαλείται,
loquitur]. ὅ. μετατέθηκεν. 8. Τεξελθών. ἔμελλε. 9. ΤῈ αβραάμ,
(post παρώκησεν). 11. στείρα ούσα (post σάρρα: sterilis). 12. ὡς ἡ
(pro ὡσεὶ) μος. 18. -- καὶ πεισθέντες. 23. μωῦσής (sic υ. 24). 26.
αἰγύπτου (-- ἐν : egyptiorum). 32. δαυίδ. XII. 1. Ταπερίστατον (at
in glossario εὐπερίστατον tantum). 2. κεκάθικεν (sedet). 3. tour
(pro yap). 8. οὐκ. 9. ενετρεπόμεθα. 13. τραχιάς. [19. habet μη:
ρων. Steph. Mill). 20. —7 βολίδι κατατοξευθήσεται. 2]. μωῦσής.
22, 20. Jungit αγγέλων πανηγύρει. 2324. κρείττον. 25. -- τῆς. Του-
pavov. 28. trarpevouev. XIIL. 14. Ἐμένουσαν (pro μέλλουσαν).
20. Sin. Ἐχριστόν. 21. 1-- τῶν αἰώνων. Τέλος τῆς πρὸς εβραίους επι-
στολής.

Sequitur “prefatio beati Hieronymi presbyteri in librum actuum
apostolorum : ” item “alius prologus.” Ac πράξεις των αποστόλων του
αγίου λουκά του ευαγγελιστού. Act. I. 15. επιτοαυτό (sic IT. 1; 44;
UL 1; IV. 26). 15. είκοσι. 16. david. 18. -- τοῦ. 24. ov efehdéw
ex τούτων των δύο ένα. 26. συγκατεψυφίσθη. 11. 7. 1-- πάντες prim.
εισίν. 8. ἐγενήθημεν. 10. λιβύας. 17. Τενυπνίοις. 25. david. δια-
παντός. 29. david (sie v. 34). 51. οὐκ ἐγκατελείφθη. 98. εκδεξιών.
36. -- καὶ (ante κύριον). 37. Τποιήσωμεν. 44. πιστεύσαντες. 47. κα-
θημέραν (non v.46; ILL 3). ILL 3. 1-- λαβεῖν. 11. σολομώνος.
18. οὔτως. 20. Ἐπροκεχειρισμένον. 21. + των (ante αγίων). 23. εάν
(pro dv). 24. κατήγγειλαν. 25. +e (ante tw). IV. 2. καταγγέ-
Lew. trov (pro τὴν ἐκ). 7. —7d. 12. t+ev (ante ovderi). tovdev

(pro οὔτε). érepov εστί. 17. Τανθρώπω. 19. ιωαννής (sic) 232].
Ἑκολάσονται. 25. david. 25. wart. 29. τανύν. 80. —oe. 32. ουδέ.
33. + χριστού (post ιησού). 37. tavrov (pro αὐτῷ). V. 3. διά τι.

5. +0 (ante avavias). 12. sarees σολομώνος. [15. + Von cum Lat. |.
17. σαδδουκαίον. 21. re (pro δὲ prim.). 23. επί (pro ev: cum). — ἔξω.
24. Ταρχιερεύς (pro ἹἹερεὺς). οἱ ἀρχιερεύς (pro -eis). 29. —0. 90,
διεχειρήσασθε. 32. πρεύμα. 36. t+ μέγαν (post εαυτόν). προσεκλήθη
(consensit). 98. τανύν. 40. δήραντες. 41. κατηξιώθησαν υπέρ του
ονόματος του (sic) ιησού (-- αὐτοῦ). 42. Τεπαύσαντο. VI. 3. Ῥκατα-
στήσομεν. 11. μωῦσήν. 13. -- τούτου. Cap. VIL. incipit ν. 2, ἄνδρες.
VIL. 2. πρινή. 4. και εκείθεν. μετώκησεν. ὅ. δούναι αυτώῴ. 1]. ουκ.
13. -- τῷ oad on 14. Τεβδομηκονταπέντε ψυχαίς. 10. ὦ (pro ὃ).

18. ἡδη. a (non vv. 20, 29). atyrriov. t—év secund. Sin.
+ αυτού. cee τε (pro δὲ. 31. μωῦσής. Τεθαύμαζε. 32. μωῦσής.
36. Ταιγύπτω. 37. Τημών (pro ὑμῶν prim.). Ὑ-- αὐτοῦ ἀκούσεσθε.

40. μωῦσής. 42. προσενέγκατε. 43, ρεφάν. 44. μωῦσή. 45. david.
46. ενώπιων. [48. οὐχ]. 58. του (ante καλουμένου. VIII. 1. be
(pro te). 7. φωνή μεγάλη. 13. --τοῦ tert. 13. tdvvapes καὶ
σημεία μεγάλα γινόμενα. [19. eav]. 25. Wrath mci 28. 1-- καὶ

secund, 30. Ἱπροδραμών. 81. μη τῆς. 32. ανοίγη. . tdeest ver-
sus. IX. 3. περιήστραψεν. 5, 6. 1- σκληρδε usque ~ αὐτόν. + αλλά
(ante ανάστηθι). 13. -- ὁ. 19. ενίσχυσε. ), Ἡπαύλος. συνέχεε. 28.

δαβόντες. 20. εν (pro eis). 28, 1-- καὶ ΩΣ εἰσ (pro ἐν
prim). 32. λύδαν. 35. λύδαν. την σαρωνάν. 38. λύδης. X. 3. ws
(pro ὡσεὶ. 5, + τινά (post σίμωνα). 6. Ὁ -- οὗτος ad fin, vers. 8.

POLYGLOTT, 1514. 361

-- τὴν. 15. exdevrépov (sic XI. 9). 17. t+ καὶ μαθόντες (post διερωτή-
σαντες). 18. —o. 19. Τδιενθυμουμένου. 21. 1-- πρὸς αὐτὸν, at habet
in sequentibus εἶπε προς αυτούς. 22. toxdov (pro ὅλου). 23. -- τῆς. 25.
Τελθείν. 26. ἤγειρεν avtov. 33. εξ αυτής (ste ΧΙ. 11). 98. Τναξζαρέτ.
39. ΤΈ και (post ov). 48. -ιησού (post kupiov), XI. 21. t+ Tou
ιάσθαι αυτούς (ante πολύς). 22. εἰς αντιόχειαν (-- ἕως) sic. 26. πρώ-
των. 29. εὐπορείτο. vovda a (sic). XID. 5. trepi (pro ὑπὲρ: pro).
6. ἔμελλε προαγαγείν avrov. ὃ. οὔτως. 9. Τγενόμενον. 11. -- τῆς.
12. 1: αδελφοί (post συνηθροισμένοι. 15. οἱ δὲ έλεγον. 19. tre
(pro δὲ. 22. Τφωνή θεού. 23. ὍΣ σκωληκώβρωτος. 25, ++ εἰς
αντιόχειαν (post ιερουσαλήμ). XIII. 2. t-te. ὃ, ούτως. 1]. -- τοῦ.
13. ἱερουσαλήμ. 17. 1--ἐν τῇ ΚΝ ΤῊΝ, [18. "ποφ-} [19. -δότ-]
22. δαυίδ bis. 24. +7ov (ante wpand) 27. --ἐν. 29. πάντα.
34. t+ αὐτόν (post υποστρέφειν). david (sic v. 36). 40. επέλθοι.
41. t+ και ἐπιβλέψατε (post θαυμάσατε). Ὑ-- ἔργον secund. o (pro ©).
42. + αυτών (post de). tra αυτά ρήματα. 44. tre (pro δὲ). 48. έχαιρε.
XIV. 8. -- καὶ (ante διδόντι). [7. tron cum Lat.]. 8. περιπεπατήκει.
10. t+oou λέγω εν TW ονόματι Tov κυρίου ιησού χριστου (post φωνή).
17. καίτοιγε. 19. tinit. διατριβόντων δε αυτών και διδασκόντων eGov
(— δὲ). ἔσυραν. 20. Ταυτών (pro αὐτὸν). XV. 1. pwvogos. 2. Τζητή-
σεως (pro avlyt.). 5. pooews. 1]. του (ante κυρίου. 12. tro
πλήθος arav. 16. david. 17. travra tavra,. 18. ta εστί γνωστά
am αιώνος αὐτώ. διό κιτιλ. 2]. μωῦσής. 22. -- τῷ. + BapoaBBav (non
B23). -24: ἘΞ ἐξ ἡμῶν. 25. εκλεξαμένοις. παύλου. 29. ΤΊ και όσα
μη θέλετε εαυτοίς γίνεσθαι, ετέροις μη ποιείτε ( post πορνείας). Ὑ πράξατε.
32. tre (pro de). 34. αὐτόθι. 40. εξήλθε. XVI. 1. 1-- ἐκεῖ,
4, Τεπορεύοντο. [πρεσβυτέρων]. 5. καθημέραν. 9. μακεδωνίαν (ste v.
10). 12. paxedwvias (non XVIII. 5). κολώνεια. tavty (pro ταύτῃ).
15. tetvar tw κυρίω. 17. Τέκραξε. Τημίν (pro vpiv). 19. -- τὸν secund.
22. τα ιμάτια αυτών. 24. εσοτέραν. 29. εισεπίδησε. 33. 1-- πάντες.
96. ἀπήγγειλεν. 37. δήραντες. 40. προσ (pro cis: ad). XVII. ὅ.
init. Ὑπροσλαβόμενοι δε ot tovdator οἱ απειθούντες των ayopaiwy τινας
ἄνδρας κ-τ. λ. (-- ζηλώσαντες δὲ. 7. -- εἶναι. 10. --τε. Ταπήεσαν ᾿
των ιουδαίων. 11. t+twv ἄλλων (post ευγενέστεροι). καθημέραν. 13.
--τῇ. 18. ΤῈ καὶ (post τινές δε). 1-- αὐτοῖς. 25. Τκατά (pro καὶ Ta).
20. προστεταγμένους. 28. tyuds (pro ὑμᾶς). 31. trapacyetv.
XVIIL. 14. Ταδίκημα τι nv. 17. ἔμελλεν. 18. κεχρέαις. 21. adda.
23. trovs μαθητάς πάντας. 24. tovoua. 26. τὴν οδόν του θεού.
XIX. 13. επεχείρισαν. 16. Τκατακυριεύσαν. 27. Τιερόν αρτέμιδος.
ουθέν. de (pro τε: et). 29. — τοῦ. [33. -AA-]. 34. επιγνόντες. 36.
πράσσειν. 37. θεόν. 38. έχουσι προς τίνα λόγον. 40. Τδούναι.
XX. 4. + πύρρου ( post σώπατρος). , γαάῖος,. 5. προσελθόντες (non
v.13). 6. ἄχρι. 7. -- τοῦ. 8. ov ype. 10. θορυβήσθε. 13. οὕτως.
14. μιτυλίνην. 15. τρογγυλίω. 21. -- τὴν secund. 23. + μοι (ante
λέγον). 26. t+ καὶ (post διό). 28. -Ὁ κυρίου και (ante θεού). 32. τα
νυν. 94. 1-- δὲς 35. τὸν λόγον. μάλλον διδόναι. 38. 1-- προέπεμπον
ad Sin. vers. δε κώδων διαπερόν. [3. -évres]. 4. -- τοὺς.
8. — οἱ περὶ τὸν Παῦλον. [ἡλθομεν]. -- τοῦ secund. 11. τοὺς πόδας και
τας χείρας. ovTws. 13. τε (pro δὲ). Τετοίμως έχω εἰς ιερουσαλήμ. 1.
επισκευασάμενοι (preparati). 16. tayayovres. 20. θεόν (pro κύριον).
21. py δε. 26, διαγγέλων, 29, εὡωρακότεσ. 32. εξ αυτής. 90. Τεγγί-

362 COLLATION OF THE COMPLUTENSIAN

σας δε (—tore). 37. 1--τι. 40. αναβάθμων. XXII. 1. νυνί, 3. πρα-
tpwov. 5. 1-- καὶ prim. μοι paptupe. 6. εγγύζοντι. 9. τὴν φωνήν
δε. 12. εὐλαβής (timoratus). + ev δαμασκώ (ante ιουδαίων). 14. εἴπεν.
19. δαίρων. 20. tapwropaprypos. 1-- καὶ quart. 22. Τκαθήκεν. 23.
κραζόντων. 25. προέτειναν. 27. 1-- εἰ, 29. -- δὲ XXII 1. -o.
7. trov σαδδουκαίων καὶ φαρισαίων. 9. ΤΈ καὶ (ante πνεύμα). 10.
καταβήναι και 11]. tdece 14. -- τοῖς secund. 15. καταγάγη αὐτόν.
16. το ένεδρον. 17. νεανίσκον. 19. κατιδίαν. 22. επέλυσε (dimisit).
24. φίληκα [teactera non cum Lat. | 26. φίληκι. 30. εξ αυτής. 35.
—rod. XXIV. 3. φίληξ. 6. κρίναι. 7. Bia πολλή (-- μετὰ). tadei-
Nero και προς σε ἀπέστειλε (pro ἀπήγαγε). 8. Τ- καὶ (post κελεύσας).
1-- ἐπίσε. 9. συνεπέθεντο.υ 10. tre (pro de). 11. 1--ἢ. [18, 118.
cum Elz.|. 14. -- ἐν. 16. Τέχων. 1-- διαπαντός. 19. Τδεί. 20. 1-- εἰ.
22. φίληξ. Τανεβάλλετο. 24. φίληξ. τη ιδία γυναικί (-- αὐτοῦ). + ιη-
σούν (post χριστόν). 25. φίληξ. λαβών. 20. -- δὲς 27. φίληξ bis. δε
(pro τε. XXV. 2. ανεφάνισαν (adierunt: ενεφ. v. 15). to τε (pro δ).
δ. +dromov (post τούτω. 6. Τοκτώ (pro δέκα). 7. αιτιώματα. 8.
ἐ-- τι. 14. Τδιέτριβεν. φίληκος. 16. πρινή. 17. -- αὐτῶν. 19. δυσ-
ειἰδαιμονίας (non XVII. 22). 20. -- εἰς. 21. ewoov. ΧΧΥ͂Ι. 2.
επί σου μέλλων απολογείσθαι. 3. Τηθών. 7. βασιλεύς. -- τῶν. 8. τι
am. jungit. 10. oides. 17. Τεγώ (pro νῦν). 19. βασιλεύς (non υ. 21).
20. [«πήγγελλον]} μετάνοιαν (pro μετανοεῖν). 22. μαρτυρόμενος.
25. αλλά. 26. .ovdé (pro οὐδὲν" οὐ). εν γωνία πεπραγμένον τούτο εστί.
32. ηδύνατο. επικέκλητο. ΧΧΎΤΙ. 2. αδραμυτηνώ. 3. 1-- τε. φιλαν-
θρόπως. + τους (ante φίλους). 5. Τκατήχθημεν (pro κατήλθομεν). 10,
φορτίου. Il. εκατοντάρχης. 15. επιδιδόντες. 17. σύρτην. 23. ταύ-
τη τὴ νυκτί. 28. opyvas bis, 29. εκπέσωμεν. 36. 1-- πάντες. 57.
εβδομήκοντα εξ. 39. δυνατόν. 40. αρτέμωνα. 42. διαφύγη. 43. βου-
λεύματος (prohibuit fieri) ΧΧΎΥΤΠ. 3. [ex] . διεξελθούσα (pro-
cessisset). 11. {]ήχθημεν. αλεξανδρηνώς 20. Τιδείν υμάς. 26.
είπον. 27. εκάμυσαν. 29. ζήτησιν. Τέλος των πράξεων των αγίων απο-
στόλων.

Sequuntur Prol. argum. “in septem epistolas canonicas : Ν “Argu-
ment. in epistolam canonicam beati Jacobi apostoli.” Ἡ του αγίου
ιακώβου επιστολή καθολική (Lat. “canonica”). Jacos. I. 5. οὐκ (pro
py). 12. turopeved. 13. —rod. 21. πραότητι (non 111. 13). 26. tev
υμίν είναι. αλλά. 27. -- τῷ. πατέρι. IT. 5. 1-- τούτου. 6. Τητοιμάσατε.
8. βασιλεικόν. εαυτόν. {Ὁ} errat Mill.). 18. — καὶ. έλεον secund.
20. ἐστί III. 3. ἴδε (non v. 4). 10. T+ ἀγαπητοί (post pov). οὕτως.
12. αλικόν. 13. init. t+eu. 17. t— καὶ prim. IV. 2. πολεμείτε και
ovk έχετε (— δὲ). 6. Τκύριος sic (pro ὁ θεὸς). 12. [tewm at + de
(post ov). 13. Ἰπορευσώμεθα, ποιήσωμεν, εμπορευσώμεθα, κερδήσωμεν.
14. ἔσται. + και (post de). 15. Τποιήσωμεν. V. 3. tJungit ὡς πὺυρ
εθησαυρίσατε. 4. vp (proad’). 7. αὐτόν (pro αὐτῷ). 9. κριθήτε. +0
(ante κριτής). 10. αδελῴφοί pov τῆς κακοπαθείας. 11. πολυευσπλαγ-
xvos. Τεστί (-- ὁ κύριος). 13, Τεισ ὑπόκρισιν. 14. προσκαλεσάτω.
18, υἱετόν. Τέλος τῆς του αγίου ιακώβου φρο επιστολής.

Argum. 1 ῬΕΤ. : sie deinceps 2 Pet. 1. 2, 3. Jo. J ud. H του —
πέτρου καθολική πρώτη επιστολή. 1 Per. Ἕ 3. nas (pro ὑμᾶς).
υμάς (pro ἡμᾶς). 9. πίστεος. 1]. als ge ra 12. υμίν bes
ἡμῖν). 23. θεού ζώντος. 11. 2. ἄρτι γέννητα. 5. Ὑθυσίας πνευματι-

POLYGLOTT, 1514. 363

kas. 6. διότι (-- καὶ). 11. απέσχεσθα. 12. ἔχοντες καλήν εν
τοις ἔθνεσιν. 10. + Tov (ante θεούδ. 21. Τ-Έ και (post yap). ἡμών
(pro ὑμῶν), at υμίν seq. 25. fin. ημών. ILL. 1. Ἑκερδηθήσονται.
6. Τεγεννήθητε. 7. Τζώσης. εγκόπτεσθαι. 12. -- οἵ. fin. t+70v εξο-
λοθρεύσαι αὐτούς ek γης. 14. εικαί. πάσχετε. 16. καταλαλούσιν.
17. θέλοι. 18. -- τῷ secund. 20. ὅτε απεξεδέχετος. 21. tw αντίτυπον
νυν kar nds. 22. Ταποταγέντων. IV. 3. Τυμίν (pro ἡμῖν). ειδωλο-
λατρίαις. 4. ασωτείας. 1]. tws (pro ἧς). 12. πειρασμών. 13. Kado.
14. Ταναπέπαυται. 19. αυτών. V. 1. ἕως (proo prim). ὃ. μήδε.
[ὅ.Ψ errat Mill.|. 8. 1-- ὅτι. 9. 1-- ἐπιτελεῖσθαι. 10. Τυμάς (pro
ἡμᾶς). [verbo seg.t]. 19. Τασπάσεται. Τέλος της του αγίου πέτρου
πρώτης επιστολής.

H tov αγίου πέτρου καθολική δευτέρα ἐπιστολή. 2 Per. I. 1. σίμων.
σοτήρος. -- ἡμῶν secund, 2. -- χριστού (ante ιησοὐῦ) sic. 4. tra τίμια
new και μέγιστα. ὅ. δὲ (pro δὲ prim.). 7. φιλαδ. 11. αἰωνίαν. 1-- καὶ
σωτῆρος. 12. Ταεί υμάς. 19. εφόσον. 10. Ἐγεννηθέντες. 19. διαυγάσει.
21. αλλά. -- ot. ΤΠ. 2. ασελγείαις (pro ἀπωλείαις). 3. tyvvorage. 4.
τηρουμένους. 9. αλλά, 9. Ἱπειρασμών. Kpiceos. 10. κυριότητας.
12. γεγενημένα. 14. πλεονεξίας. 15. καταλειπόντες (derelinguentes)
sic. --τὴν. 18. -- ἐν secund. (Jungit i ie ασελ.). ολίγον (pro ὄντως).
20. tot (pro ei) sic. III. 1. Τδιαγείρω. 2. υμών (pre ἡμῶν). 3, επι-
θυμίας αυτών. 4. οὐτωσ. 7. Ταυτού (pro αὐτῷ). 8. tfin. μία ἡμέρα.
12. τακήσεται. 13. Ταυτού ἐπάγγελμα. 18. -- καὶ quart. Τέλος της
του ἐγ πέτρου καθολικῆς δευτέρας επιστολής.

2. Ἷ JoHAN. Η tov αγίου ιωάννον (sic in 1 Jou.) καθολική
j aa
ὌΠ ἐπιστολή. 1 JOHAN. I. 1. Τυμών (pro ἡμῶν secund.). 2.
τρίτη i
Τεπαγγέλλομεν (non v. 3). 4. Τημών (pro ὑμῶν). 5. téorw αὐτη. 6.
Tpevdonea. IL. 11. Τετύφλωσεν αυτού τους οφθαλμούς. 14. -- ἔγραψα
usque ad ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς (sic Lat.). [23. tewm Elz.]. 27. Ὑδιδάσκη (pro
-ε). 29. Τίδητε. [-vv-]. IIT. 2. duro. 6. ove prim. 10. εστί ex.
16. + του θεού (post ayarnv). 17. dav. 1-- ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ. Ὑμενείί 18. +77
(ante γλώσση. 23. thin. -- ἡμῖν. 24. t+ μένει (post αὐτώ secund.).
έδωκεν quiv. IV. 2. γινώσκεται (sic Lat.). 3. -- τὸν. t—70. 9. απέ-
στειλεν (non v. 14). 16. tin. t+ μένε. 21. t-0o Υ͂ 4. Τυμών

nro ἡμῶν). 6. [us o xo] -- τῷ tert. 7. 1: και (post πατήρ). fin.
pro np X' ι 2 THP

1 Adv. 7 notatur: Sanctus thomas in expositione secunde decretalis de suma
trinitate et fide catholica tractans istum passum contra abbatem Joachim ut Tres
sunt qui testimonium dant in celo. pater: verbum: et spiritus sanctus: dicit ad
litteram verba sequentia. Et ad insinuandam unitatem trium personarum sub-
ditur et hii tres unum sunt. Quod quidem dicitur propter essentie unitatem.
Sed hoe Joachim perverse trahere volens ad unitatem charitatis et consensus
inducebat consequentem auctoritatem. Nam subditur ibidem; et tres sunt qui
testimonium dant in terra. 5. spiritus: aqua: et sanguis. Et in quibusdam libris
additur: et hii tres unum sunt. Sed hoe in veris exemplaribus non habetur: sed
dicitur esse appositum ab hereticis arrianis ad pervertendum intellectum sanum
auctoritatis premisse de unitate essentie trium personarum. Hec beatus thomas
ubi supra.

364 COLLATION OF THE COMPLUTENSIAN

και οἱ Τρεῖς εἰς TO εν εἰσι (et hi tres unum sunt). 8. επί της γῆς (in
terra). -- καὶ ot τρεῖς ad fin. vers. Sic etiam Lat. 10. εν αὐτώ (in
se). 13. Ταιώνιον ἔχετε. [14. ἡμών]. 15. eav (pro dv). 20. + Θεόν
(post αληθινόν : sic Lat.). —y. 1. 2.3. Jonan. Τέλος της του αγίου

πρώ \
wwavvov καθολικής Sern επιστολής.
τρίτης ᾿
2. Jonan. [2. μεθ ημών]. 3. [υμών]. ἀπό (pro παρὰ prim.: a).
[5. γράφων]. 8. Ἐπ καλά (post εἰργασάμεθα). [γον cum Lat.]. 12.
εβουλήθην.
3. JOHAN. [7. cum 715.]1. 8. γενώμεθα (sinus). 10. Τυπομνήσων.
11. -- δὲς 15. tin. + ἀμήν.
H tov αγίου ιούδα καθολική ἐπιστολή. Jud. 1. Τχριστού ιησού.
ὃ, -- τῇ. 4. Τθεόν και δεσπότην τον Kip. 7. t, δίκην. 9. μωῦσέος. σε
(pro ἘᾺΝ 12. Τ-τυμίν (ante αφόβως). παραφερόμεναι (conferuntur).
φθινοπώρινα. 18. -- τὸν. 14. αγίαις μυριάσιν. 15. ελέγξαι. 18. επι-
θυμίας εαυτών. 19. Τ-- ἑαυτούς. 20. ημών (pro ὑμῶν). 24. Ταυτούς
(pro ὑμᾶς). κατ ενώπιον. [123, 24 caetera cum Hlz.|. 25. 1-- θεῷ,
Τέλος τῆς του αγίου ιούδα καθολικής επιστολής.
Prologi duo, e Arg. in Apocal. Ἀποκάλυψις του αγίου αποστόλου
και ευαγγελιστού wwavvov tov θεολόγου. Apoc, 1. 2. -- τε. tin. + και
ἅτινα et και a χρὴ γενέσθαι μετά ταύτας 3. προφητίας. 4. -- τοῦ.

6. βασιλείαν (pro βασιλεῖς καὶ). 8. ἄλφα. 1-- ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος. λέγει

κύριος o θεός. 9. -- καὶ prim. κοινωνός. -- ἐν τῇ secund. εν χριστώ
ιησού (prow xd). 10. Ὑ φωνήν οπίσω μου. 11. -- ἐγώ εἰμι usque ad
5, / ’ / a Se (ἃ ’ὔ 9 + ’,
ἔσχατος καί. + επτά (ante ἐκκλησίαις). 1-- ταῖς ἐν ᾿Ασί. 12. ΤῈ εκεί

(ante ἐπέστρεψα). ἐλάλει. 13. μαζοίς. 16. χειρί αυτού. 17. tore (pro
ὅτε). -- μοι. 18. του θανάτου και του ἄδου. 19. + ουν (post γράψον).
γενέσθαι. II. 1. trys εκκλησίας epéow. 2. -- σου secund. ereipacas.
τους λέγοντας eavto’s αποστόλους civat. ὃ. -- καὶ tert. — κεκοπίακας.
Sin. και οὐκ εκοπίασας (pro καὶ οὐ κέκμηκας). 4. αλλα. [ὅ. Τταχύ).
7. -- αὐτῷ. fin. + μου. 8& τῆς εν σμύρνη ἐκκλησίας. 9. αλλά πλούσιος
(— δὲ). 10. ΤῈ δὴ (post ἰδού). o διάβολος εξ υμών. 11]. τω (pro ro).
18. 1-- καὶ quart. o gatavas κατοικεί. 14. Ὑ εδίδαξε. [τον β.]. 18.
τῶν (pro ὃ μισῶ) cum sequent. 17. κενόν. oidev (pro ἔγνω).

19. 1 και την πίστιν και τὴν διακονίαν. -- καὶ sext, 20, 1-- ὀλίγα. αφείς
(pro ἐᾷς : permittis). ὙἘ σου τὴν (post γυναίκα). ιεζάβελ. ἡ λέγει. + και
διδάσκει και πλανά τους. φαγείν εἰδωλόθυτα. 21. Post μετανοήση : Kat
ov θέλει μετανοήσαι εκ της πορνείας αυτής. 22. 1-- ἐγὼ. fin. αυτής. 34.
trots (pro καὶ ργήην.). Ὑ-- καὶ secund. βαθέα. 27. συντριβήσεται. III.
1. [ἐπτά πν.] -- τὸ. 2. t έμελες αποβαλείν. fin. + pov. 3. [errat διορῆ.].
4. init. -- αλλ. t ολίγα ἔχεις. -- καὶ prim. 5. περιβαλλείται. ομολογήσω.
7. «rev. david. +0 ἀνοίγων και ουδείς κλείσει αὐτήν ο μη ο ανοΐγων, και
οὐδείς ανοίξε. 8. ἣν (pro καὶ prim.). 9. Τήξουσι. 1-- ἐγὼ. 1].
1-Ἰδού. 12. ναώ. er αυτού 14. τῆς εν λαοδικεία εκκλησίας. 15. ns
(pro εἴης). 16. tov ζεστός οὔτε ψυχρός. 17. 1-- ὅτι secund. +0 (ante
ἐλεεινός). 18. Ὁ χρυσίον παρ εμού. -- καὶ secund. 1 κολούριον. + ert
(ante τοὺς οφθ.). 20. t+ καὶ (ante εἰσελεύσομαι). IV. 1. ανεωγ-
μένη. 3. 1- καὶ ὁ καθήμενος ἦν. σαρδίω. [ομοία]. 4. εικοσιτέσ-
σαρες (- καὶ). εικοσιτέσσαρας (-- καὶ). -- ἔσχον. ὃ. φωναί καὶ βρονταί.

POLYGLOTT, 1514. 365

++avrov (ante a). εισίν ἐπτά (- 7a). 6. ws θάλασσα νελίνη. 8. εν
καθέν αυτών (singula eorum). ἔχον. γέμουσιν. + ἅγιος novies. 9. δώσει.
10. εἰκοσιτέσσαρες (— καὶ). + βάλλουσι. 11. to κύριος Kat ο θεός ἡμῶν
ὁ ἅγιος (pro κίριε). Ὗ. 1. έξωθεν (pro ὄπισθεν: foris). 2. 1 -- ἐστιν.
3. εδύνατος 4. πολύ. ὅ. -- ὧν. david. 1-- λῦσαι. 6. εσφαγισμένον.
ta (pro οἵ). πνεύματα του θεού αποστελλόμενα (-- τὰ). 7. -- τὸ βιβλίον,
at + βιβλίον in fin. vers. 8.—ot. 10. + αὐτούς (pro ἡμᾶς). + βασιλεύ-
ovow. 11. t+s (ante φωνήν). κύκλω. [teaetera cum Elz.]. 12. ἐσφα-
γισμένον. 13. επί (pro ἐν secund.) της γης. πάντας (pro πάντα) cum se-
quent. Ὑ fin. --αμήν. 14. 1 λέγοντα το ( pro ἔλεγον). 1-- εἰκοσιτέσσαρες.
έπεσον. 1-- ζῶντι κιτιλ. VI. 1. tore ( pro ὅτε). + extra (ante σφραγί-
δων). φωνή. t—Kai βλέπε. 3. ex αὐτόν. 3, tore ( pro ὅτε: non vv. 7,
9). 1-- καὶ βλέπε. 4. ἐπ αὐτόν. εκ (pro ἀπὸ: de). t— καὶ tert. 5. τὴν
σφραγίδα την τρίτην. t—Kai βλέπε. ἐπ αὐτόν εχον. 7. την τετάρτην
σφραγίδα. λέγοντος. 1-- καὶ βλέπε. 8, -- ὁ secund. αὐτώ (pro αὐτοῖς).
ἐπί TO τέταρτον της yys αποκτείναι. 9. των ανθρώπων των ἐσφαγισ-
μένων. t+ του αρνίου (post μαρτυρίαν). 10. Τέκραξαν. -- ὁ tert. εκ (pro
ἀπὸ: de). 11. 1-- καὶ ἐδόθησαν usque ad λευκαί. 1εδόθη (pro ἐρρέθη).
1-- μικρόν. πληρωθώσι. 12. 1- καὶ (ante ore), 1-- ἰδοὺ. tpédas εγέν-
ero. [tin sequent. errat Steph.|. 13. ἔπεσον. 14. +0 (ante ουρανός).
ελισσόμενον. 15. οἱ χιλίαρχοι και οἱ πλούσιοι. ισχυροί (pro δυνατοὶ).
VII. 1. trovro (pro ταῦτα). 2. avaBaivovta. 3. Ταδικήσατε. μετό-
πων. 4. trov αριθμών. exatov και τεσσαράκοντα τέσσαρες. 5. δώδεκα
passim. ρουβείν. tdeest ἐσφραγισμένοι decies in vv. 5—8: legitur
primo et ultimo loco. 6. tpavacy. 7. wayap. 9. -- αὐτὸν. εδύνατο.

10. Τκράζουσι. 11. ειστήκεισαν. τα πρόσωπα. 12. —7 septim. 14. εἰ
πον (pro εἴρηκα). + μου ( post κύριε). αὐτάς ( pro το αὐτῶν secund.).
15. επί τω θρόνω. 16. πινάσουσιν. ovd ουμή πέση. . ζωής. εκ (pro

ἀπὸ: ab). VIII. 3. tov θυσιαστηρίου prim. [. cum ἀν 6. οι
(ante έχοντες). 7. t- ἄγγελος. te (ante aipare). + καὶ TO τρίτον τῆς
yns κατεκάη (post γῆν). t—Kat τὸ τρίτον τῶν δένδρων κατεκάη. 8.
t—aupl. 9. -- τῶν secund. διεφθάρησαν. 10. -- των (ante υδάτων).
11. +0 (ante ἀψινθος). eyévero. -- τῶν (ante ἀνθρώπων. 13. αετού
(pro ἀγγέλου). πετομένου. ++ τρις (post μεγάλη: ve bis Lat.). IX. 2.
txavopéevns (pro μεγάλης). 4. αυτοίς (pro ἫΝ 5. βασανίσωσι. πλήξη
(pro παίσῃ). 0. Τζητούσιν. ουμή (pro ovy). [εὑρήσουσιν]. tam αυτών o
θάνατος. 7. Τητοιμασμένα. Τχρυσοί (pro ὅμοιοι χρυσῷ). 10. tKae
(pro jv). Ὑεξουσίαν έχουσι του (pro καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν). 11. téxov-
σαι βασιλέα ex αυτών (— kal). — Tov. Ταββαδών. εν δε (— καὶ). +o (ante
αποχλύων). fin. t. 12. ἔρχεται. 14. Το έχων (pro ὃς εἶχε. 16.
1-- καὶ ἡμέραν. 16. των στρατευμάτων του ἴππου. 1-- δύο. 1-- καὶ
secund. 17. ὡράσει. vaxwOivovs. 18. από (pro ὑπὸ: et ab). Ἔπληγών
(ante τούτων). - ἐκ tsecund. et tert. 19. ἢ γὰρ εξουσία των ἵππων
(-- αὐτῶν prim.). εστί. -- καὶ ev ταῖς ουραίς αυτών (post ἐστί). ὅμοιοι.
20. tov (pro ovre).+7a (ante cidwra). 21. φαρμακιών. Χ, 1.
1-- ἄλλον. + ἡ (ante ίρις). + αυτού (post Keparys). 2. βιβλιδάριον. τῆς
θαλάσσης. τῆς γης. 4. 1-- τὰς φωνὰς ἑαυτῶν. 1-- μοι. Τκαι μετά ταύτα
γράφεις. 5. ΤἸ τὴν δεξίαν (post avrov). 0. Tour έ έτι ἔσται. 7. αλλ.
-- καὶ, to (pro ws). ευηγγελίσατο tous δούλους αυτού τους προφήτας (per).
8. βιβλιδάριον. ανεωγμένον. + του (ante ἀγγέλου. 9. βιβλιδάριον (sic

366 COLLATION OF THE COMPLUTENSIAN

v.10). 11. + επί (ante ἔθνεσι). XI. 1. Τειστήκει ο ἄγγελος. 2. ἐξω-
θεν (foris), at ἔξωθεν (pro sequens ἔξω: Joras). ἵ μετρήσεις. τεσσαρακον-
ταδύο. 4. αι (ante δύο secund.). κυρίου (pro θεοῦ). ὅ. είτις bis.
θέλει. θέλει αυτούς secund, οὕτως. 6. verds βρέχη. tras ἡμέρας. της
προφητείας αυτών. t+ev (ante πάση πληγή). 7. pet αυτών πόλεμον.
ὃ, + τῆς (ante πόλεως). σώδομα. αυτών (pro ἡμῶν). 9. + βλέπουσιν.
1-- καὶ (ante ἡμισυ). (non v. 11). οὐχ. Ἐμνήμα. 10. Τχαίρουσιν. 11.
--τὰς, ἐπέπεσεν. 12. Τήκουσα. ,Φωνής μεγάλης. λεγούσης. 13. Τημέρα
(pro wpa). 14. ty ovat ἡ τρίτη ιδού. 15. eyévero ἡ βασιλεία. 16.
-- καὶ secund. ἔπεσον. [17. errat Steph.]. 19. trov κυρίου (pro αὐτοῦ
pr im). 1-- καὶ σεισμὸς. XII. 2. έκραζεν. 3. επτά διαδήματα. 4.
μελούσης τίκτειν. 5. ποιμανείν. ἡρπάγη. -- προσ (ante τὸν θρόνον).
6. T+ εκεί (post έχει). εκτρέφωσιν. 7. Ἴτου πολεμήσαι (pro ἐπολέμη-
σαν). peta (pro κατὰ: cum). 8. Τίσχυσεν. ovdé (pro οὔτε). Ταυτώ
(pro αὐτῶν). 9. -- 6 (ante σατανάς). 10. ev τω ουρανώ λέγουσαν.
12, -- τοῖς κατοικοῦσι. τῇ γή και τῇ θαλάσση. 13. -- τὴν prim. 14.
torus τρέφηται (pro ὅπου τρέφεται. 15. ex του στόματος αυτού
οπίσω τῆς γυναικός. αὐτήν (pro ταύτην). 17. οργίσθη. 1-- χριστοῦ.
ΧΊΙΊΙΠΠ. 1. κέρατα δέκα καὶ κεφαλάς επτά. ονόματα. [3. ἄρκτου]. 3.
t— εἶδον. + ex (post μίαν). ὡσεί (pro ὡς). 4. τω δράκοντι τω δεδωκότι
την. τω θηρίω (pro τὸ θηρίον). και τις δυνατός. 5. ὁ βλασφημίαν. τεσσά-
ράκοντα δύο. 7. ποιήσαι πόλεμον. 8. tro ὄνομα. τω βιβλίω. + Tov
(ante εσφαγμένου). 10. tinit. είτις έχει αιχμαλωσίαν ᾽πυπάγει (-aix-
μαλωσίαν συνάγει εἰς). 12. ἐποίει ( pro ποιεῖ secund.). + εν αυτή κατοι-
κούντας. 13. t+ καὶ πυρ, va εκ του oupavov καταβαίνη = ποιῇ). επί ( pro
eis: in terram). 14. ++ τους enous ( post hava). οικόνα. (non v. 15).
teiye. 15. tarvetpa Sovvar. και iva (pro iva καὶ). -- ἡ. toved Tous μὴ
προσκυνούντας τὴ εικόνι (-- ὅσοι av). 10. δώσιν. + χαράγματα. μετόπων.
18, -- τὸν prim. t ἐστίν εξακόσιοι εξήκοντα εξ. XIV. 1. τεσσαράκοντα
τέσσαρες. + αυτού και TO ὄνομα (post ὄνομα). 2. 4 φωνή ἣν (pro φωνὴν᾽
quart.). +s (ante κιθαρωδών). 8. t— ὡς. εδύνατο. τεσσαράκοντα
τέσσαρες. 4. 1- γαρ (post ὅπου). t+ υπό ιησού (ante ἡγοράσθησαν).
δ. t ψεύδος (pro δόλος). teat (-- ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ).

wheat ευαγγελίσασθαι. καθημένους (pro κατοικοῦντας). + επί (ante
παν). » λέγων. + τὴν (ante θάλασσαν). 8. t+ δεύτερος ( post ἄγγελος).
βαβυλών. -- ἡ πόλις. 1-- ὅτι. - τὰ (ante ἔθνη. 9. tT άλλος ἄγγελος
τρίτος. είἰτις προσκυνεί το θηρίον. 11]. 1 εἰς αιώνας αἰώνων αναβαΐίψει.
εἰτις. 12. του (ante moor). 13. Jungit ἀπάρτι λέγει. Τ λέγει ναι.
15. φωνή μεγάλη. ἦλθεν (-- σοὺ. 19. fin. τον μέγαν. 20. ἔξωθεν
(pro ἔξω: extra). εξήλθεν. XV. 2. υελίνην bis. + πυρί μεμιγμένην.
- ἐκ τοῦ χαράγματος αὐτοῦ. 3, μωύυσέος του δ. εθνών (pro ἁγίων). 4.
άγιος εἰ A pro ὅσιος: pius 68). 5. 1-- ἰδοὺ. 6. - οἱ (ante ἔχοντες).
t ουρανού (pro ναοῦ). t+ οἱ ἦσαν (ante evded.). ++ και (ante καθαρῶν).
περιεσζωσμένοι. 8, t— ἑπτὰ a XVI. 1. -- καὶ secund. 2. trovs
προσκυνούντας τὴ εἰκόνι αυτού. 4. εζέχεε. 1-- εἰς secund. 5. 1-- κύριε.
- καὶ tert. 6. 1-- γὰρ. 7. -- ἄλλου. 9. t+ ot ἄνθρωποι (post εβλασ-
φήμησαν). + τὴν (ante εξουσίαν). 12. -- τὸν tert. 13. ws βάτραχοι
(pro ὅμοια βατράχοις). 14, -- τῆς γῆς καὶ. - τον (ante πόλεμον). παν-
τοκράτωρος. Τῦ. -- τὸν prim. αρμαγεδών. 18, 1 αστραπαί και βρονται
και φωναί. αφού. XVIL 1. -- μοι. 2. οἱ κατοικούντες τὴν γὴν εκ τοῦ

POLYGLOTT, 1514. 367

oivov τῆς πορνείας αυτής. 4. nv (pro ἡ secund.). t πορφύραν. + κόκ-
κινον. t—Kat tert. txatta ἀκάθαρτα τῆς. 5. taopvwv. 8. init. +70.
ὅτι. t. Kau πάρεσται. (sic). 9. extd όρη εισίν. 10. érecov. — καὶ secund.
13. αὐτῶν. 1 διδόασιν. 16. {καὶ (pro ἐπὶ). $+ ποιήσουσιν αὐτήν ( post
γυμνήν). 17. γνώμην ie τελεσθήσονται οι λόγοι. DG SE. he
ἄλλον (ante ἄγγελον). . tev ἰσχυρά φωνή (-- ἰσχύϊ et μεγάλῃ). 3.
+ τοῦ θυμού του οίνου. taemotixe. 4. και ἐκ τῶν πληγών αυτής iva μη λά-
Byte. ὅ. εκολλήθησαν (pervenerunt). ἴ- αυτής ( post εμνημόνευσεν).
7. Ὑ-- καὶ πένθος prim. -- ὅτι (ante κάθημαι). ὃ. κρίνας. 9. init. καὶ
κλαύσουσι και κόψονται er αὐτήν. 10. -- ἐν. 12. πορφυρού. 13. ραίδων.
14, ἀπώλοντο (pro ἀπῆλθεν secund.). + ουμή ευρήσεις. 10. κεχρυσω-
μένη. 17. +0 (ante επί). πλέων (pro ὁ ὅμιλος). 18. βλέποντες ( pro
ὁρῶντες). 19. t+ καὶ (ante λέγοντες). Ἔτα (ante πλ ota). 20. ex αυτή.
Ἐ- καὶ ov (ante ἀπόστολοι. 24. aipara. XIX. 1. λεγόντων. καὶ
ἢ δύναμις Kat ἡ δόξα (- καὶ ἡ τιμὴ). Tov θεού (— ἘΣ: 2. διέφθειρε.
--τῆς. ὃ. Τείρηκεν. 4. εικοσιτέσσαρες (-- καὶ). ὅ. --καὶ tert. 6. --ημών
(post θεύς). 8. λαμπρόν Kat καθαρόν. των αγίων εστέί 10. -- τοῦ
prim. 12. Ὑ-- ὡς. ++ ονόματα γεγραμμένα και (post ἐχων). 14. επί ir.
Ὑ-- καὶ secund. 15. - δίστομος (ante οξεία). πατάξη. -- καὶ ult.
10. --τὸ secund. 17. πετομένοις. συνάχθητε (Τ -- καὶ). fin. tro μέγα
του θεού. 18. --ἶτε (post ελευθέρων). μικρών τε (-- καὶ septim.). 20. μετ
αὐτού (pro μετὰ τούτου). -- τῷ (ante θείω). 21. εξελθούση ( pro ἐκπο-
ρευομένῃ. XX. 1. κλείν. 2. +o σατανάς o πλανών τὴν οικουμένην όλην
καὶ εὖ. Ὁ. erlcige (— αὐτὸν Hee πλανά έτι τα έθνη. 4. -- τὰ
(ante χίλια). 5. και οἱ λοιποί (-- δὲ). ἔζησαν. ἄχρι ( pro ἕως). 6. ο δεύ-
τερος θάνατος. "8. + tov (ante πόλεμον). 9. εκύκλευσαν. T ex Tov oupa-
vov από του θεού. 10. - και (post ὅπου). 11. μέγαν λευκόν. ex avtov.
to ovpavos και ἡ γη. 12. τους μεγάλους και τους μικρούς. θρόνου ( pro
θεοῦ). ανεώχθησαν. ἄλλο βιβλίον. ανεώχθη. 13. t+ eavtwv (pro ἐν αὐ-
τοῖς). 14. ο θάνατος ο δεύτερος. fin. t+7 λίμνη του πυρός. ΧΑΧΙ. 2.
t— ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης. Τ εἶδον ponitur ante καταβαίνουσαν. ὃ. λαός. 1-- θεὸς
αὐτῶν. 4. 1--ὁ θεὸς. 5. row πάντα. 6. { γέγονα το a και To ὦ.
--η. -- τὸ tert. 7. ταύτα (pro πάντα). -- ὁ secund. 8. init. τοις δε
δειλοίς. t+ ἀμαρτωλοίς καὶ (ante εβδελ.). φαρμακοίς. ἐστίν ο θάνατος
ο δεύτερος. 9. ήλθεν (-- πρός με). + εκ (post εἰς). -- τὰς (ante γεμούσας).
Ἴ την γυναίκα την νύμφην του αρνίου. 10. -- τὴν (ante αγίαν). 11. 1 -- καὶ,
Ἵ κρυσταλίζοντι. 12. —re. 13. init. από. ανατολών. + και (ante από
secund., tert., quart.). 14. και ew αυτών δώδεκα ονόματα των 605. 15.
+ μέτρον (ante κάλαμον). 1-- καὶ τὸ τεῖχος αὐτῆς. 16. 1-- τοσοῦτόν ἐστιν.
— καὶ (post sus ++ δώδεκα (etiam post χιλιάδων). 18. dpovoy vero.
20. σαρδώνυξ. évatos. tvaxivOwos. 21. vedos διαυγής. 24. και περι-
πατήσουσι Ta έθνη διά του φωτός αυτής (-- τῶν σωζομένων). 27. κοινόν.
XXII. 1. ποταμόν καθαρόν. 2. - ἕνα. αποδιδούς. 8. κατάθεμα.
Ἱ εκεί (pro ἔτι). 5. φωτιεί 6. λέγει (pro εἶπέ). πνευμάτων των ( pro
ἁγίων). 8. Kayo. o ακούων και βλέπων ταύτα. δειγνύντος. 9. 1-- γάρ.
+ --καὶ (ante των τηρ). 10. εστί. 1]. ρυπαρός ρυπαρευθήτω. i δικαιο-
σύνην ποιησάτω (pro δικαιωθήτω). 12. init. — καὶ. έσται αυτού. 19.
1-- εἰμι. άλφα. 15. -- δὲ, --ὦ. 16. david. fin. ο πρωϊνός (pro καὶ
ὀρθρινός). 17. έρχου (pro ἐλθέ) bis. ερχέσθω ( pro ἐλθέτω). 1-- καὶ ult.
λαβέτω (-- τὸ sequens). 18. tT μαρτυρώ. +t εγώ (pro γὰρ). επιθή. ex αυτά

368 COLLATION OF THE COMPLUTENSIAN POLYGLOTT, 1514.

(pro πρὸς ταῦτα). 1 επιθήσαι. + ex αὐτόν o θεός. ++ exta (ante πληγάς).
Ἔ τω (ante BiBdtw). 19. αφέλη. του βιβλίου. αφέλοι. + του ξύλου ( pro
βίβλου secund.). t— καὶ ult. -- τω (ante BiBdiw). 31. 1-- ἡμῶν. Ὑ των
αγίων (pro ὑμῶν). Τέλος της αποκαλύψεως᾽.

1 The fullest collation of any portion of the Complutensian N.T. which has
hitherto appeared is that of the Apocalypse contained in Tregelles’ Book of Reve-
lation mentioned above, p. 347. On comparing pp. 364—8 of the present volume
with Tregelles’ notes, I find that we differ in 66 places. Out of these Tregelles is
quite wrong in xi. 17; 19; xviii. 3: he cites inaccurately in xii. 17; xv. 3; xviii.
5; 17; xxi. 8: in rg instances he overlooks various readings of the Compluten-
sian: the remaining cases refer to itacisms and peculiarities of spelling, which it was
not his purpose to record.

Heo Gratias.

CHAPTER VI.

ON THE LAWS OF INTERNAL EVIDENCE, AND THE
LIMITS OF THEIR LEGITIMATE USE.

ΕΣ have now described, in some detail, the several species
of external testimony available for the textual criticism
of the New Testament, whether comprising manuscripts of
the original Greek (Chap. 11.), or ancient translations from
it (Chap. 111.)}, or citations from Scripture made by ecclesi-
astical writers (Chap. Iv.). We have, moreover, indicated the
chief editions wherein all these materials are recorded for our
use, and the principles that have guided their several editors in
applying them to the revision of the text (Chap. v.). One
source of information, formerly deemed quite legitimate, has
been designedly passed by. It is now agreed among competent
judges that Conjectural Emendation must never be resorted to,
even in passages of acknowledged difficulty, in the absence of
proof that the reading thus substituted for the common one is
actually supported by some trustworthy document. Those that
have been hazarded aforetime by eminent scholars, when but
few codices were known or actually collated, have seldom, very
seldom, been confirmed by subsequent researches: and the time
has now fully come that, in the possession of abundant stores of
variations collected from memorials of almost every age and
country, we are fully authorised in believing that the reading
which no manuscript, or old version, or primitive Father has
borne witness to, however plausible and (for some purposes)
convenient, cannot safely be accepted as genuine or even as pro-
bable*.

1 Bentley, the last great critic who paid much regard to conjectural emenda-
tions, promised in his Prospectus of 1720 (see p. 320) that “If the author has
anything to suggest towards a change of the text, not supported by any copies

370 ON THE LAWS OF INTERNAL EVIDENCE,

In no wise less dangerous than bare conjecture, destitute of
external evidence, is the device of Lachmann (see p. 343) for
unsettling by means of emendation (emendando), without refer-
ence to the balance of conflicting testimony, the very text he
had previously fixed by revision (recensendo) through the means
of critical authorities: in fact the earlier process is but so much
trouble misemployed, if its results are liable to be put aside by
abstract judgment or individual prejudices. Not that the most
sober and cautious critic would disparage the fair use of internal
evidence, or withhold their proper influence from those reason-
able considerations which in practice cannot, and in speculation
ought not to be shut out from every subject on which the mind
seeks to form an intelligent opinion. Whether we will or not,
we unconsciously and almost instinctively adopt that one of two
opposite statements, in themselves pretty equally attested to, which
we judge the better suited to recognised phenomena, and to the
common course of things. I know of no person who has affected
to construct a text of the N.'T. on diplomatic grounds exclu-
sively, without paying some regard to the character of the sense
produced; nor, were the experiment tried, would any one find
it easy to dispense with discretion and the dictates of good
sense: nature would prove too strong for the dogmas of a way-
ward theory. “It is difficult not to indulge in subjectiveness’,
at least in some measure,’ writes Dr Tregelles (Account of
Printed Text, p. 109): and (thus qualified) we may add that it is
one of those difficulties a sane man would not wish to overcome.

The foregoing remarks may tend to explain the broad dis-
tinction between mere conjectural emendation, which must be
utterly discarded, and that just use of internal testimony which
he is the best critic who most judiciously employs. They so
far resemble each other, as they are both the product of the

now extant, he will offer it separate in his Prolegomena.” It is really worth
while to turn over Wm Bowyer's Critical Conjectures and Observations on the N.T.,
or the Summary of them contained in Knappe’s N. Τὶ of 1797, if only to see the
utter fruitlessness of the attempt to illustrate Scripture by ingenious guess-work,
The best (e.g. mopxelas for πορνείας Act, xv. 20, 29), no less than the most tasteless
and stupid (¢.g. νηνεμίαν for νηστείαν Act. xxvii. 9) in the whole collection, are
hopelessly condemned by the deep silence of a host of authorities which have since
come to light.

1 1 am afraid I also must crave leave to use this rather affected but convenient
term.

AND THE LIMITS OF THEIR LEGITIMATE USE. 371

reasoning faculty exercising itself on the sacred words of Scrip-
ture: they differ in this essential feature, that the one proceeds
in ignorance or disregard of evidence from without, while the
office of the other has no place unless where external evidence be
evenly, or any rate not very unevenly, balanced. What degree
of preponderance in favour of one out of several readings (all of
them affording some tolerable sense) shall entitle it to reception
as a matter 5. right; to what extent canons of subjective criti-
cism may be allowed to eke out the scantiness of documentary
authority; are points that cannot well be defined with strict
accuracy. Men’s decisions respecting them will always vary
according to their temperament and intellectual habits; the
judgment of the same person (the rather if he be by constitution
a little unstable) will fluctuate from time to time as to the same
evidence brought to bear on the self-same passage. Though
the canons or rules of internal testimony be themselves grounded
either on principles of common sense, or on certain peculiarities
which all may mark in the documents from which our direct
proofs are derived (see below, p. 376); yet has it been found by
experience (what indeed we might have looked for beforehand),
that in spite, perhaps in consequence, of their extreme sim-
plicity, the application of these canons has proved a searching
test of the tact, the sagacity, and judicial acumen of all that
handle them. For the other functions of an editor accuracy
and learning, diligence and zeal are sufficient: but the delicate
adjustment of conflicting probabilities calls for no mean exercise
of a critical genius. This innate faculty we lack in Wetstein,
and notably in Scholz; it was highly developed in Mill and
Bengel, and still more in Griesbach. His well-known power in
this respect is the main cause of our deep regret for the failure
of Bentley’s projected work, with all its faults whether of plan
or execution.

Nearly all the following rules of internal evidence, being
founded in the nature of things, are alike applicable to all sub-
jects of literary investigation, though their general principles may
need some modification in the particular instance of the Greek
Testament.

I. Prociivr ScRIPTIONI PRAESTAT ARDUA: the more diff-
cult the reading the more likely it is to be genuine. It would
24—2

372 ON THE LAWS OF INTERNAL EVIDENCE,

seem more probable that the copyist tried to explain an obscure
passage, or relieve a hard construction, than to make that per-
plexed which before was easy: thus in John vil. 39, Lachmann’s
addition of δεδομένον to οὔπω γὰρ ἦν πνεῦμα ἅγιον is Very impro-
bable, though countenanced by Cod. B and (of course) by the
versions. This is Bengel’s prime canon, and although Wetstein
is pleased to deride it (N. 7. Vol. 1. Proleg. p. 157), he was him-
self ultimately obliged to lay down something nearly to the same
effect!. Yet this excellent rule may easily be applied on a wrong
occasion, and is only true caeterts paribus, where manuscripts
or versions lend strong support to the harder form. ‘ To force
readings into the text merely because they are difficult, is to
adulterate the divine text with human alloy; it is to obtrude
upon the reader of Scripturé the solecisms of faltering copyists,
in the place of the word of God (Wordsworth, δ΄. 7. Vol. 1.
Preface, p. xii.). See Chap. rx. note on Matth. xxi. 28—31.

II. That reading out of several is preferable, from which
all the rest may have been derived, although it could not be
derived from any of them. ‘Tischendorf (N. 7. Proleg. p. xlii.
7th edition) might well say that this would be “ omnium regu-
larum principium,” if its application were less precarious. Of
his own two examples the former is too weakly vouched for to
be listened to, save by way of illustration. In Matthew xxiy.
38 he and Alford would simply read ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τοῦ κατα-
κλυσμοῦ on the very feeble evidence of Cod. L, one uncial Evst.
(13), a.e.f", the Thebaic version and Origen (in two places) ;
because the copyists, knowing that the eating and drinking and
marrying took place not in the days of the flood, but before
them (καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν ἕως ἦλθεν ὁ κατακλυσμὸς υ. 39), would
strive to evade the difficulty, such as it was, by adopting one of
the several forms found in our copies: ἡμέραις πρὸ τοῦ κατακλ.
ΟΥ ἡμέραις ταῖς πρὸ τοῦ KaTaKN., OY ἡμέραις ἐκείναις πρὸ τοῦ

1 “vir, Inter duas variantes lectiones, si quae est εὐφωνότερος aut planior aut
Graecantior, alteri non protinus praeferenda est, sed contra saepius. Vill, Lectio
exhibens locutionem minus usitatam, sed alioqui subjectae materiae convenientem,
praeferenda est alteri, quae, cum aeque conveniens sit, tamen phrasim habet minus
insolentem, usuque magis tritam.” Wetstein’s whole tract, Animadversiones et
Cautiones ad examen variarum lectionum N. T. necessariae (N. T. Vol. 11. pp. 851
—874) deserves attentive study. See also the 43 Canones Critict and their Con-
firmatio in the N, Τὶ of G, Ὁ, Τὶ Μ' D. (above, p. 319).

AND THE LIMITS OF THEIR LEGITIMATE USE. 373

κατακλ., or ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ταῖς πρὸ τοῦ κατακλ., OY even
ἡμέραις τοῦ νῶε. In his second example Tischendorf is more
fortunate, unless indeed we choose to refer it rather to Bengel’s
canon. James 111. 12 certainly ought to run μὴ δύναται, aded-
φοί μου, συκῆ ἐλαίας ποιῆσαι, ἢ ἄμπελος σῦκα; οὔτε (vel οὐδὲ)
ἁλυκὸν γλυκὺ ποιῆσαι ὕδωρ, as in Codd. ABC, not less than six
good cursives, the Vulgate and other versions. ΤῸ soften the
ruggedness of this construction, a few copies prefixed οὕτως to
οὔτε or οὐδὲ, while others inserted the whole clause οὕτως
οὐδεμία πηγὴ ἁλυκὸν Kal before γλυκὺ ποιῆσαι ὕδωρ. Another
fair instance may be seen in Chap. 1Χ., note on Col. 1. 2.

III. “ Brevior lectio, nisi testium vetustorum et gravium auc-
toritate penitus destituatur, praeferenda est verbosiori. Librarii
enim multd proniores ad addendum fuerunt, quam ad omitten-
dum” (Griesbach, N. 7. Proleg. p. lxiv. Vol. 1.). This canon
bears an influential part in the system of Griesbach and his
successors, and by the aid of Cod. B (see p. 93) and a few others,
has brought great changes into the text. Mr Green too (Course
of Developed Criticism on Text of N. 7.) sometimes carries it
to excess in his desire to remove what he considers accretions.
It is so far true that scribes were prone to receive marginal
notes into the text which they were originally designed only
to explain or enforce (e.g. 1 John v. 7)!; or sought to am-
plify a brief account from a fuller narrative of the same event
found elsewhere, whether in the same book (e. g. Act. ix. 5
compared with xxvi. 14), or in the parallel passage of one
of the other synoptical Gospels. In quotations, also, from
the Old Testament the shorter form is always the more pro-
bably correct. Circumstances too will be supplied which were
deemed essential for the preservation of historical truth (e.g.
Act. viii. 37), or names of persons and places may be inserted
from the Lectionaries (see pp. 11, 211): to this head also we
must refer the graver and more deliberate interpolations so
frequently met with in Cod. D and a few other documents. Yet
it is just as true that words and clauses are sometimes wilfully

1 “Though the theory of explanatory interpolations of marginal glosses into
the text of the N. T. has been sometimes carried too far (e.g. by Wassenberg in
Valcken, Schol. in N. T. Tom. 1.), yet probably this has been the most fertile source
of error in some MSS. of the Sacred Volume,” (Wordsworth, V. 7’., on 2 Cor. iii. 3.)
Yes, in some MSS,

374 ON THE LAWS OF INTERNAL EVIDENCE,

omitted for the sake of removing apparent difficulties (e.g. υἱοῦ
βαραχίου, Matth. xxiii. 85 in Cod. δὲ and a few others), and
that the negligent loss of whole passages through ὁμοιοτέλευ-
tov (see p. 9) is common to manuscripts of every age and cha-
racter. On the whole, therefore, the indiscriminate rejection of
portions of the text regarded as supplementary, on the evidence
of but a few authorities, must be viewed with considerable dis-
trust and suspicion.

IV. That reading of a passage is preferable which best
suits the peculiar style, manner, and habits of thought of the
author; it being the tendency of copyists to overlook the idio-
syncrasies of the writer. Thus in editing Herodotus an Ionic
form is more eligible than an Attic one equally well attested,
while in the Greek Testament an Alexandrine termination should
be chosen under similar circumstances. Yet even this canon
has a double edge: habit or the love of critical correction will
sometimes lead the scribe to change the text to his author's
more usual style, as well as to depart from it through inad-
vertence.

V. Attention must be paid to the genius and usage of each
several authority, in assigning the weight due to it in a parti-
cular instance. Thus the testimony of Cod. B is of the less
influence in omissions, that of Cod. D (Bezae) in additions, in-
asmuch as the tendency of the former is to abridge, that of the
latter to amplify the sacred text. The value of versions and
ecclesiastical writers also much depends on the degree of care
and critical skill which they display.

Every one of the foregoing rules might be applied mutatis
mutandis to the emendation of the text of any author whose
works have suffered alteration since they left his hands: the
next (so far as it is true) is peculiar to the case of Holy
Scripture.

VI. ‘Inter plures unius loci lectiones ea pro suspecta
merito habetur, quae orthodoxorum dogmatibus manifest® prae
caeteris favet’’ (Griesbach, N. 7. Proleg. p. Ixvi. Vol. 1.). I cite
this canon from Griesbach for the sake of annexing Archbishop
Magee’s very pertinent corollary: “from which, at least, it is

AND THE LIMITS OF THEIR LEGITIMATE USE. 375

reasonable to infer, that whatever readings, in favour of the
Orthodox opinion, may have had his sanction, have not been
preferred by him from any bias in behalf of Orthodoxy” (Dés-
courses on Atonement and Sacrifice, Vol. 111. p. 212). Alford
says that the rule, ‘sound in the main,” does not hold good,
when, ‘‘ whichever reading is adopted, the orthodox meaning ts
legitimate, but the adoption of the stronger orthodox reading is
absolutely incompatible with the heretical meaning,—then it is
probable that such stronger orthodox reading was the original”
(N. 1. Proleg. Vol. 1. p. 83, note 6): instancing Act. xx. 28,
where the weaker reading τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ κυρίου would quite
satisfy the orthodox, while the alternative reading τοῦ θεοῦ
“would have been certain to be altered by the heretics.” But
in truth there seems no good ground for believing that the rule
is “sound in the main,” though two or three such instances
as 1 Tim. il. 16 and the insertion of θεὸν in Jude v. 4 may
seem to countenance it (see above, p. 16). We dissent altoge-
ther from Griesbach’s statement ‘‘ Scimus enim, lectiones quas-
cunque, etiam manifestd falsas, dummodo orthodexorum pla-
citis patrocinarentur, inde a tertii seculi initiis mordicus defensas
seduloque propagatas, caeteras autem ejusdem loci lectiones,
quae dogmati ecclesiastico nil praesidii afferrent, haereticorum
perfidiae attributas temere fuisse” (Griesb. ubz supra), if he means
that the orthodox forged those great texts, which, believing them
to be authentic, it was surely innocent and even incumbent on
them to employ*. ‘The Church of Christ “inde a tertii seculi
initiis” has had her faults, many and grievous, but she never
did nor shall fail in her ΩΣ as a fualeal “witness and keeper of
Holy Writ.” But while vindicating the copyists of Scripture
from all wilful tampering with the text, we need not deny that
they, like others of their craft, preferred that one out of several
extant readings that seemed to give the fullest and most em-
phatic sense: hence Davidson would fain account for the addi-
tion ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ Kal ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ (which, how-
ever, is apparently genuine) in Eph. v. 30. Since the medieval
scribes belonged almost universally to the monastic orders, we

1 Griesbach’s ‘etiam manifestd falsas” can allude only to 1 John v. 7: yet it
is a strong point against the authenticity of that passage that it is not cited by
Greek writers, who did not find it in their copies, but only by the Latins who did.
I am sorry that Dean Alford thought this sentence worth reprinting.

376 ON THE LAWS OF INTERNAL EVIDENCE,

will not dispute the truth of Griesbach’s rule, “ Lectio prae
aliis sensum pietati (praesertim monasticae) alendae aptum fun-
dens, suspecta est,” though its scope is doubtless very limited’.
Their habit of composing and transcribing Homilies has also
been supposed to have led them to give a hortatory form to
positive commands or dogmatic statements (see p. 15), but there
is much weight in Wordsworth’s remark, that ‘‘such suppo-
sitions as these have a tendency to destroy the credit of the
ancient MSS.; and if such surmises were true, those MSS.
would hardly be worth the pains of collating them” (note on
1 Cor. xv. 49).

VII. “Apparent probabilities of erroneous transcription,
permutation of letters, itacism and so forth,” have been desig-
nated by Professor Ellicott ‘“ paradiplomatic evidence” (Preface
to the Galatians, p. xvii. 1st ed.), as distinguished from the
“ dinlomatic’’ testimony of codices, versions, &c. This species of
evidence, which can hardly be deemed internal, must have con-
siderable influence in numerous cases, and will be used the most
skilfully by such as have considerable practical acquaintance
with the rough materials of criticism. We have anticipated
what can be laid before inexperienced readers on this topic in
our first Chapter, when discussing the sources of various read-
ings*: in fact, so far as canons of internal or of paradiplomatic
evidence are at all trustworthy, they instruct us in the reverse

1 Alford’s only definite example is found but in a single cursive (4) in fom.
xiv. 17, οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἣ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ βρῶσις καὶ πόσις, ἀλλὰ δικαιοσύνη Kal
ἄσκησις καὶ elp. Tregelles (Account of Printed Text, p. 222) adds 1 Cor. vil. 5 ;
Act, x. 30; Rom. xii. 13(!).

2 See (6) p. 9; (7) p. το; (17) p. 143 (18) p. 15. The uncial characters most
liable to be confounded by scribes (sce p. 9) are AAA, EC, 00, NII, and less pro-
bably TIT. I was lately shewn an article in a foreign Classical periodical, written
by Professor Kuenen, the co-editor of the Leyden reprint of the N.T. portion of
Cod. B; which (unless regarded as a mere jeu d’esprit) would serve to prove that
the race of conjectural emendators is not so completely extinct as I had supposed
(see p. 369). By a dexterous interchange of letters of nearly the same form (A for
A, € for C, I for T, C for €, Καὶ for IC, T for I) this Dutch Bentley—and he well
deserves the name—suggests for ACTELOC τῷ θεῷ Act. vii. 20 [compare Hebr. xi.
23] the common-place AEKTOC τῷ θεῷ, from Act. x. 35. Each one of the six
necessary changes Kuenen profusely illustrates by examples, and even the reverse
substitution of δεκτὸς for ἀστεῖος from Alciphron: but in the absence of all manu-
script authority for the very smallest of these several permutations in Act. vii. 20,
he excites in us no other feeling than a sort of grudging admiration of his misplaced
ingenuity.

AND THE LIMITS. OF THEIR LEGITIMATE USE. 377

process to that aimed at in Chap. 1.; the latter shewing by what
means the pure text of the inspired writings was brought into
its present state of partial corruption, the former promising us
some guidance while we seek to retrace its once downward
course back to the fountain-head of primeval truth’. ΤῸ what
has been previously stated in regard to paradiplomatic testimony
it may possibly be worth while to add Griesbach’s caution
“lectiones RHYTHMI fallacia facillimé explicandae, nullius sunt
pretii” (NV. 7. Proleg. p. lxvi.), a fact whereof 2 Cor. ili. 3 affords a
memorable example. Here the perfectly absurd reading ἐν πλαξὶ
καρδίαις σαρκίναις, by dint of the rhyming termination, is re-
ceived by Lachmann in the place of καρδίας, on the authority of
Codd. SABCDEGL, perhaps a majority of cursive copies (seven
out of Scrivener’s twelve), and that abject slave of manuscripts,
the Philoxenian Syriac. Codd. FK have καρδίας. |
It has been said that ‘‘ when the cause of a various reading is
known, the variation usually disappears’.” This language may
seem extravagant, yet it hardly exaggerates what may be effected
by internal evidence, when it is clear, simple, and unambiguous.
It is, therefore, much to be lamented that this is seldom the case
in practice. Readings that we should uphold in virtue of one
canon, are very frequently (perhaps in a majority of really doubt-
ful passages) brought into suspicion by means of another; yet
they shall each of them be perfectly sound and reasonable in their
proper sphere. An instance in point is Matth. v. 22, where the
external evidence is divided. Codd. δὲ (in A secundé@ manu) 48.
198, Origen twice, the Aethiopic and Vulgate omit εἰκῆ after πᾶς
ὁ ὀργιζόμενος TH ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ, Jerome fairly stating that it is
“in quibusdam codicibus,’”’ not “in veris,’” which may be supposed
to be Origen’s (above, p. 266), and therefore removing it from hig
revised Latin version. It is found however in a// other extant
copies (including DEKLMSUVA. 1. 33, all the Syriac and Old
Latin copies, the Memphitic, Armenian and Gothic versions), in

1 Thus Canon 1. of this Chapter includes (12) p. 12; (19) p. 15: Canon III.
includes (2), (3) p. 8; (4) Ρ. 93 (8), (9), (10) pp. 11, 12: while (13) p. 13 comes
under Canon Iv; (20) p. 15 under Canon VI.

2 Mai’s smaller edition of Cod. B also has καρδίας, but this I presume is
only one of those injudicious corrections of the original which go so far towards
making his labours useless. In his first or larger edition he gives καρδίαις.

3 Canon Criticus xxiv, N.T. by G. D.T, M.D. p. 12, 1735: see above, p. 319.

818 ON THE LAWS OF INTERNAL EVIDENCE, «ce.

Eusebius, the Latin Fathers from Irenaeus, andeven in the old
Latin version of Origen himself; the later authorities for once
uniting with Cod. D and its associates against the two oldest
manuscripts extant. Under such circumstances the suggestions
of internal evidence would be precious indeed, were not that just
as equivocal as diplomatic proof. ‘Griesbach and Meyer,” says
Dean Alford, “hold it to have been expunged from motives of
moral rigorism:—De Wette to have been inserted to soften the
apparent rigour of the precept.” Our sixth Canon is here op-
posed to our first. The important yet precarious and strictly
auxiliary nature of rules of internal evidence will not now
escape the attentive student; he may find them exemplified
very slightly and imperfectly in the ninth Chapter of this
volume, but more fully by all recent critical editors of the Greek
Testament; except Tregelles, who usually passes them by in
silence, though to some extent they influence his decisions; and
Lachmann, in the formation of whose provisional text (see pp.
343,370) they have had no share. We will close this investiga-
tion by citing a few of those crisp little periods (conceived in the
same spirit as our own remarks) wherewith Davidson is wont to
inform and sometimes perhaps to amuse his admirers:

“ Readings must be judged on internal grounds. One can hardly
avoid doing so. It is natural and almost unavoidable. It must be
admitted indeed that the choice of readings on internal evidence is
liable to abuse. Arbitrary caprice may characterise it. It may de-
generate into simple subjectivity. But though the temptation to mis-
apply it be great, it must not be laid aside.... While allowing superior
weight to the external sources of evidence, we feel the pressing ne-
cessity of the subjective. Here, as in other instances, the objective
and subjective should accompany and modify one another. They

cannot be rightly separated.” (Biblical Criticism, Vol. τι. p. 374,
1852.)

CHAPTER VII.

ON THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT AND OF THE PRIN-
CIPAL SCHEMES THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED
FOR RESTORING IT TO ITS PRIMITIVE STATE,
INCLUDING RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE
CRITICISM.

i adequate discussion of the subject of the present Chapter
would need a treatise by itself, and has been the single
theme of several elaborate works. We shall here limit our-
selves to the examination of those more prominent topics, a clear
understanding of which is essential for the establishment of
trustworthy principles in the application of external evidence to
the correction of the text of the New Testament. The use of
internal evidence has been sufficiently considered in the pre-
ceding Chapter.

1. It was stated at the commencement of this volume that
the autographs of the sacred writers “ perished utterly in the
very infancy of Christian history” (p. 2): nor can any other
conclusion be safely drawn from the general silence of the
earliest Fathers, and from their constant habit of appealing to
“ ancient and approved copies!,” when a reference to the originals,
if extant, would have put an end to all controversy on the sub-
ject of various readings. Dismissing one passage in the genuine
Epistles of Ignatius (d. 107), which has no real connexion with
the matter?, the only allusion to the autographs of Scripture

1 e.g, Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, V. 30. 1, for which see below, p. 383: the
early date renders this testimony most weighty.

2 In deference to Lardner and others, who have supposed that Ignatius refers
to the sacred autographs, we subjoin the sentence in dispute. “Emel ἤκουσά τινων
λεγόντων, ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις εὕρω, ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ οὐ πιστεύω" Kal λέγοντός

380 ON THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT, INCLUDING

met with in the primitive ages is the well-known declaration
of Tertullian (fl. 200). ‘ Percurre Eeclesias Apostolicas, apud
quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesident,
apud quas ipsae Authenticae Literae eorum recitantur, sonantes
vocem, et repraesentantes faciem uniuscujusque. Proximé est
tibi Achaia, habes Corinthum. Si non longé es a Macedonia,
habes Philippos, habes Thessalonicenses. Si potes in Asiam
tendere, habes Ephesum. Si autem Italiae adjaces, habes Ro-
mam...’’ (De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 36). Attempts
have been made, indeed, and that by very eminent writers, to
reduce the term “Ἢ Auwthenticae Literae” to mean nothing more
than “ genuine, unadulterated Epistles,’ or even the authentic
Greek as opposed to the Latin translation. It seems enough
to reply with Ernesti, that any such non-natural sense is abso-
lutely excluded by the word “ ¢psae,” which would be utterly
absurd, if “ genuine” only were intended (Institutes, Pt. 1.
Ch. τι. 3)": yet the African Tertullian was too little likely to
be well informed on this subject, to entitle his rhetorical state-
ment to any real attention®. We need not try to explain away

μου αὐτοῖς, ὅτι γέγραπται, ἀπεκρίθησάν μοι, ὅτι πρόκειται. "Euol δὲ ἀρχεῖά ἐστιν
Ἰησοῦς Χριστός κιτ.λ. (Ad Philadelph. c. 8). On account of ἀρχεῖα in the
succeeding clause, ἀρχείοις has been suggested as a substitute for the manuscript
reading ἀρχαίοις, and so the interpolators of the genuine Epistle have written: but
without denying that a play on the words was designed between ἀρχαίοις and
ἀρχεῖα, both copies of the old Latin version maintain the distinction made in the
Medicaean Greek (‘si non in veteribus invenio” and ‘‘ Mihi autem principium est
Jesus Christus”), and any difficulty as to the sense lies not in ἀρχαίοις but in
πρόκειται. Chevallier’s translation of the passage is perfectly intelligible, ‘‘ Because
I have heard some say, Unless I find it in the ancient writings, I will not believe
in the Gospel. And when I said to them, It is written [in the Gospel], they
answered me ‘It is found written before [in the Law].’” Gainsayers set the first
covenant in opposition to the second and better one.

+ Compare too Jerome’s expression “ipsa authentica” (Comment. in Epist. ad
Titum), when speaking of the autographs of Origen's Hexapla: below p. 388.

* The view I take is Coleridge’s too (Zable Talk, p. 89, 2nded.). ‘I beg
Tertullian’s pardon; but among his many bravuras, he says something about
St Paul’s autograph. Origen expressly declares the reverse ;” referring, I suppose,
to the passage cited below, p. 384. Bp. Kaye, the very excel!encies of whose
character almost unfitted him for entering into the spirit of Tertullian, observes:
‘Since the whole passage is evidently nothing more than a declamatory mode of
stating the weight which he attached to the authority of the Apostolic Churches ;
to infer from it that the very chairs in which the Apostles sat, or that the very
Epistles which they wrote, then actually existed at Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, &c.,
would be only to betray a total ignorance of Tertullian’s style” (Kaye’s Ecclesias-

RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 381

his obvious meaning, but may fairly demur to the evidence of
this honest, but impetuous and wrong-headed man. We have
no faith in the continued existence of autographs, which are
vouched for on no better authority than the real or apparent
exigency of zs argument},

2. Besides the undesigned and, to a great extent, unavoid-
able differences subsisting between manuscripts of the New
Testament within a century of its being written, the wilful cor-
ruptions introduced by heretics soon became a cause of loud
complaint in the primitive ages of the Church. Dionysius,
Bishop of Corinth, addressing the Church of Rome and Soter
its Bishop (168—176), complains that even his own letters had
been tampered with: καὶ ταύτας οἱ τοῦ διαβόλου ἀπόστολοι
ζιζανίων γεγέμικαν, ἃ μὲν ἐξαιροῦντες, ἃ δὲ προστιθέντες" οἷς τὸ
οὐαὶ κεῖται: adding, however, the far graver offence, οὐ θαυμα-
στὸν dpa εἰ Kal TOV κυριακῶν ῥαδιουργῆσαί τινες ἐπιβέβληνται
γραφῶν (Kuseb. Ecc. Hist. tv. 23), where ai κυριακαὶ γραφαὶ can
be no other than the Holy Scriptures. Nor was the evil new
in the age of Dionysius. Not to mention the Gnostics Basilides
(A.D. 130?) and Valentinus (150?) who published additions
to the sacred text which were avowedly of their own composi-
tion, Marcion of Pontus, the arch-heretic of that period, coming

tical History...illustrated from the writings of Tertullian, p. 313, 2nd ed.). Just
so: the autographs were no more in those cities than the chairs were: but it suited
the purpose of the moment to suppose that they were extant; and, knowing
nothing to the contrary, he boldly sends the reader in search of them.

1 T do not observe, as some have thought, that Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. v. 10)
intimates that the copy of St Matthew’s Gospel in Hebrew letters, left by St
Bartholomew in India, was the Evangelist’s autograph; and the notion that St
Mark wrote with his own hand the Latin fragments now at Venice (for., see
Ῥ. 265) is unworthy of serious notice. The statement twice made in the Chronicon
Paschale of Alexandria, compiled in the sixth century, but full of ancient frag-
ments, that ὡσεὶ τριτὴ was the true reading of John xix. 14 “ καθὼς τὰ ἀκριβῆ
βιβλία περιέχει, αὐτό τε τὸ ἰδιόχειρον τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ ὅπερ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν
πεφύλακται χάριτι Θεοῦ ἐν τῇ ἐφεσίων ἁγιωτάτῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν
πιστῶν ἐκεῖσε προσκυνεῖται" (Dindorf, Chron. Pasch. pp. 11 and 411) is simply in-
credible. Isaac Casaubon, however, a most unimpeachable witness, says that this
passage, and another which he cites, were found by himself in a fine fragment
of the Paschal treatise of Peter Bp. of Alexandria and martyr [d. 311], which he
got from Andrew Darmarius, a Greek merchant. Casaubon adds to the assertion
of Peter ‘“‘Hec 116. Ego non ignoro quid adversus hance sententiam possit dis-
putari: de quo judicium esto eruditorum” (Zxercit, in Annal, Eccles. pp. 464, 670,
London 1614).

582 ON THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT, INCLUDING

to Rome on the death of its Bishop Hyginus (142)*, brought
with him that mutilated and falsified copy of the New Testa-
ment, against which the Fathers of the second century exerted
all their powers, and whose general contents are known to us
chiefly through the writings of Tertullian and subsequently of
Epiphanius. It can hardly be said that Marcion deserves very
particular mention in relating the history of the sacred text.
Some of the variations from the common readings which his oppo-
nents detected were doubtless taken from manuscripts in circula-
tion at the time, and, being adopted through no private prefer-
ences of his own, are justly available for critical purposes. Thus
in 1 Thess. ii. 15 Tertullian, who saw only τοὺς προφήτας in his
own copies, objects to Marcion’s reading τοὺς ἰδίους προφήτας
(“licet swos adjectio sit haeretici’’), although ἰδίους stands in the
received text, in Codd. KL (DE in later hands) and all cursives
except seven, the Gothic, both Syriac versions, Chrysostom and
Theodoret. Here the heretic’s testimony is useful in shewing
the high antiquity of ἰδίους, even though ABDEFG, seven
cursives, the Vulgate, Armenian, A‘thiopic, and all three Egyp-
tian versions, join with Origen, Lachmann and Tischendorf in
rejecting it, some of them perhaps in compliance with Tertullian’s
decision. In similar instances the evidence of Marcion, as to a
matter of fact to which he could attach no kind of importance, is
well worth recording: but where on the contrary the dogmas of
his own miserable system are touched, or no codices or other wit-
nesses countenance his changes (as is perpetually the case in his
edition of St Luke, the only Gospel—and that maimed and in-
terpolated from the others—he seems to have acknowledged at all)
his blasphemous extravagance may very well be forgotten. In
such cases he does not so much as profess to follow anything more

respectable than the capricious devices of his misguided fancy.
3. Nothing throws so strong a light on the real state of the
text in the latter half of the second century as the single notice of
Trenaeus (ἃ, 178) on Apoe. xiii. 18 (see above, p. 379, note1). This
eminent person, the glory of the Western Church in his own
age, whose five books against Heresies (though chiefly extant
but in a bald old Latin version) are among the most precious
1 “‘Necdum quoque Marcion Ponticus de Ponto emersisset, cujus magister

Cerdon sub Hygino tunc episcopo, qui in Urbe nonus fuit, Romam venit: quem
Marcion secutus...” Cyprian. Zpist. 74. Cf. Euseb. Lecl. Hist. 1v. 10, 11.

RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 383

reliques of Christian antiquity, had been privileged in his youth
to enjoy the friendly intercourse of his master Polycarp, who
himself had conversed familiarly with St John and others that
had seen the Lord (Euseb. Ecc. Hist. v.20). Yet even Irenaeus,
though removed but by one stage from the very Apostles, pos-
sessed (if we except a bare tradition) no other means of settling
discordant readings than are now open to ourselves; to search out
the best copies and exercise the judgment on their contents.
His locus classtcus must needs be cited in full, the Latin
throughout, the Greek in such portions as survive. The question
is whether St John wrote y&>" (666), or yes’ (616).

“ His autem sic se habentibus, et in omnibus antiquis et probatis-
simis et veteribus scripturis numero hoe posito, et testimonium per-
hibentibus his qui facie ad faciem Johannem viderunt (τούτων δὲ ov-
τως ἐχόντων, καὶ ἐν πᾶσι δὲ τοῖς σπουδαίοις καὶ ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ
ἀριθμοῦ τούτου κειμένου, καὶ μαρτυρούντων αὐτῶν ἐκείνων τῶν κατ᾽ ὄψιν
τὸν ᾿Ιωάννην ἑωρακότων, καὶ τοῦ λόγου διδάσκοντος ἡμᾶς ὅτι ὁ ἀριθμὸς
τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ θηρίου κατὰ τὴν τῶν Ἑλλήνων ψῆφον διὰ τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ
γραμμάτων ἐμφαίνεται), et ratione docente nos quoniam numerus no-
minis bestiae, secundum Graecorum computationem, per literas quae
in eo sunt sexcentos habebit et sexaginta et sex (ἐσφάλησάν τινες
ἐπακολουθήσαντες ἰδιωτισμῷ Kal τὸν μέσον ἠθέτησαν, ἀριθμὸν τοῦ ὀνό-
ματος v ψήφισμα ἀφελόντες καὶ ἀντὶ τῶν ἕξ δεκάδων μίαν δεκάδα βουλό-
μενοι εἶναι) : ignoro quomodo erraverunt quidam sequentes idiotismum
et medium frustrantes numerum nominis, quinquaginta numeros de-
ducentes, pro sex decadis unam decadem volentes esse. Hoc autem
arbitror scriptorum peccatum fuisse, ut solet fieri, quoniam et per
literas numeri ponuntur, facilé literam Graecam quae sexaginta enun-
tiat numerum, in iota Graecorum literam expansam. Sed his quidem
qui simpliciter et sine malitia hoc fecerunt, arbitramur veniam dari

a Deo.” (Contr. Haeres. vy. 30. 1: Harvey, Vol. τι. pp. 406—7.)

Here we obtain at once the authority of Irenaeus for receiving
the Apocalypse as the work of St John; we discern the living
interest its contents had for the Christians of the second century,
up to the traditional preservation of its minutest readings; we
recognise the fact that numbers even then were represented by
letters; and the far more important one that the original auto-
graph of the Apocalypse was already so completely lost, that a
thought of it never entered the mind of the writer, though
the book had not been composed one hundred years, perhaps not
more than seventy’.

1 Trenaeus’ anxiety that his own works should be kept free from corruption,
and the value then attached to the labours of the corrector, are plainly seen in a

984 ON THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT, INCLUDING

4, Clement of Alexandria is the next writer who claims our
attention (fl. 194). Though his works abound with citations
from Scripture, on the whole not too carefully made (“in addu-
cendis N. T. locis creber est et castus,” is rather too high praise,
Mill, Proleg. § 627), the most has not yet been made of the infor-
mation he supplies (see p. 285). He also complains of those
who tamper with (or metaphrase) the Gospels for their own
sinister ends, and affords us one specimen of their evil diligence’.
His pupil Origen’s [185—254] is the highest name among the
critics and expositors of the early Church; he is perpetually en-
gaged in the discussion of various readings of the New Testa-
ment, and employs language in describing the then existing state
of the text, which would be deemed strong if applied even to its
present condition, after the changes which sixteen more centuries
must needs have produced. His statements are familiar enough
to Biblical enquirers, but, though often repeated, cannot be
rightly omitted here. Seldom have such warmth of fancy and so
bold a grasp of mind been united with the life-long patient in-
dustry which procured for this famous man the honourable appel-
lation of Adamantius. Respecting the sacred autographs, their
fate or their continued existence, he seems to have had no in-
formation, and to have entertained no curiosity: they had sim-
ply passed by and were out of reach. Had it not been for
the diversities of copies in all the Gospels on other points
(he writes)—xal εἰ μὲν μὴ καὶ περὶ ἄλλων πολλῶν διαφωνία
ἣν πρὸς ἄλληλα τῶν avtvypapov—he should not have ventured

remarkable subscription preserved by Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. v. 20), which illustrates
what was said above, pp. 46—7. ‘Opkl{w σε τὸν μεταγραψόμενον τὸ βίβλιον τοῦτο,
κατὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, ἧς
ἔρχεται κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, ἵνα ἀντιβάλλῃς ὃ μετεγράψω, καὶ κατορθώσῃς αὐτὸ
πρὸς τὸ ἀντίγραφον τοῦτο, ὅθεν μετεγράψω ἐπιμελῶς, καὶ τὸν ὅρκον τοῦτον ὁμοίως
μεταγράψῃς, καὶ θήσεις ἐν τῷ ἀντιγράφῳ. Here the copyist (ὁ μεταγράφων) is
assumed to be the same person as the reviser or corrector.

1 Μακάριοι, φησίν, οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι αὐτοὶ viol Θεοῦ κληθή-
σονται ἢ, ὥς τινες τῶν μετατιθέντων τὰ Θὐαγγέλια, Μακάριοι, φησίν, οἱ δεδιωγμένοι
ὑπὸ τῆς δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἔσονται τέλειοι" καί, μακάριοι οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκα ἐμοῦ,
ὅτι ἕξουσι τόπον ὅπου οὐ διωχθήσονται (Stromata, ΤΥ. 6). Tregelles (Horne, p. 39,
note 2).pertinently remarks that Clement, in the very act of censuring others,
subjoins the close of Matth. v. 9 to v. 10, and elsewhere himself ventures on
liberties no less extravagant, as when he thus quotes Matth. xix. 24 (or Luke
xviii. 25): πειστέον οὖν πολλῷ μᾶλλον τῇ γραφῇ λεγούσῃ, Θᾶττον κάμηλον διὰ
τρυπήματος βελόνης διελεύσεσθαι, ἢ πλούσιον φιλοσοφεῖν (Stromata, 11. 5).

RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 385

to object to the authenticity of a certain passage (Matth. xix. 19)
on internal grounds: νυνὶ δὲ δηλονότι πολλὴ γέγονεν ἡ τῶν
ἀντιγράφων διαφορά, εἴτε ἀπὸ ῥαθυμίας τινων γραφέων, εἴτε ἀπὸ
τόλμης τίνων μοχθηρᾶς τῆς διορθώσεως τῶν γραφομένων, εἴτε
καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς δοκοῦντα ἐν τῇ διορθώσει προστιθέντων
ἢ ἀφαιρούντων (Comment. on Matth. Tom. 1. p. 671, De la
tue). ‘But now,” saith he, “great in truth has become the
diversity of copies, be it from the negligence of certain scribes,
or from the evil daring of some who correct what is written,
or from those who in correcting add or take away what they
think fit!:” just like Irenaeus had previously described revisers
of the text as “qui peritiores apostolis volunt esse” (Contra
Haeres. tv. 6. 1).

5. Nor can it easily be denied that the various readings of
the New Testament current from the middle of the second to the
middle of the third century, were neither fewer nor less consider-
able than such language would lead us to anticipate. Though
no surviving manuscript of the Old Latin version dates before the
fourth century, and most of them belong to a still later age, yet the
general correspondence of their text with that used by the first
Latin Fathers is a sufficient voucher for its high antiquity (see
pp. 252—5). The connexion subsisting between this Latin ver-
sion and the Curetonian Syriac and Codex Bezae proves that the
text of these documents is considerably older than the vellum on
which they are written; the Peshito Syriac also, most probably
the very earliest of all translations (see pp. 229—231), though
approaching far nearer to the Received text than they, sufficiently
resembles these authorities in many peculiar readings to exhibit
the general tone and character of one class of manuscripts extant

1 In this place (contrary to what might have been inferred from the language
of Irenaeus, cited above, p. 383 note) the copyist (γραφεὺς) is clearly distinct from
the corrector (διορθωτὴς), who either alters the words that stand in the text, or
adds to and subtracts from them. In the masterly Preface to Kuenen and Cobet’s
N.T. ad fidem Cod. Vaticani, Leyden, 1860, pp. xxvii—xxxiv, will be found most
of the passages we have used that bear on the subject, with the following from
Classical writers, ‘‘ Nota est Strabonis querela x111. p. 609 de bibliopolis, qui libros
edebant γραφεῦσι φαύλοις χρώμενοι, Kal οὐκ dvTBdddovres....Sic in Demosthenis
Codice Monacensi ad finem Orationis XI annotatum est Διωρθώθη πρὸς δύο '᾽Αττι-
κιανά, id est, correctus est (hic liber) ex duobus codicibus ab Attico (nobili calligrapho)
descriptis.” Just as at the end of each of Terence’s plays the manuscripts read
“«Calliopius recensui.”

386 ON THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT, INCLUDING

in the second century, two hundred years anterior to Codd. NB.
Now it may be said without extravagance that no set of Scriptural
records affords a text less probable in itself, less sustained by any
rational principles of external evidence, than that of Cod. D, of
the Latin codices and (so far as it accords with them) of Cure-
ton’s Syriac. Interpolations, as insipid in themselves as unsup-
ported by other evidence, abound in them all: additions so little
in accordance with the genuine spirit of Holy Writ that some
critics (though I, for one, profess no skill in such alchemy) have
declared them to be as easily separable from the text which they
encumber, as the foot-notes appended to a modern book are from
the main body of the work (Account of the Printed Text, p. 138
note). It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that
the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever
been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was
composed; that Irenaeus and the African Fathers and the whole
Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior
manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or
Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus
Receptus. What passage in the Holy Gospels would be more
jealously guarded than the record of the heavenly voice at the
Lord’s Baptism? Yet Augustine (De Consensu Evangelist. 11.
14) marked a variation which he thought might be found “in
aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus,” though not “ in antiquioribus
codicibus Graecis,” where in the place of ἐν col ηὐδόκησα (Luke
iii. 22) the words ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά ce are substituted from
Psalm ii. 7 (so also Faustus apud Augustin.; Enchiridion ad Lau-
ventium c. 49). The only Greek copy which maintains this im-
portant reading is D: it is met with moreover in abe (in d of
course) ff? primd@ manu, and 1, whose united evidence leaves not
a doubt of its existence in the primitive Old Latin; whence it is
cited by Hilary three times, by Lactantius and Juvencus. Among
the Greeks it is known but to Methodius, and to those very early
writers, Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria, who seem to
have derived the corruption (for such it must doubtless be re-

garded) from the Ebionite Gospel (Epiphan. Zaer, xx1. 18)",

1 Considering that Cod. D and the Latin manuscripts contain the variation in
Luke iii. 22, but not in Matth. iii. 17, we ought not to doubt that Justin Martyr
(p. 331. B, Ed. Paris, 1636) and Clement (p. 113, Ed. Potter) refer to the former.
Hence Bp. Kaye (Account of the Writings of Clement, p. 410) should not have

RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 387

So again of the doubtful passages we shall examine in Chapter
ΙΧ, Irenaeus cites Act. viii. 37 without the least misgiving,
though the spuriousness of the verse can hardly be doubted; and
expressly testifies to a reading in Matth. i. 18 which will now
perhaps be upheld by no one. It is hard to believe that 1 John
v. 7 was not cited by Cyprian, and even the interpolation in
Matth. xx. 28 was widely known and received. Many other ex-
amples might be produced from the most venerable Christian
writers, in which they countenance variations (and those not ar-
bitrary, but resting on some sort of authority) which no modern
critic has ever attempted to vindicate.

6. When we come down to the fourth century, our informa-
tion grows at once more definite and trustworthy. Copies of
Scripture had been extensively destroyed during the long and
terrible period of affliction that preceded the conversion of Con-
stantine. In the very edict which marked the beginning of Dio-
cletian’s persecution, it is ordered that the holy writings should
be burnt (τὰς γραφὰς ἀφανεῖς πυρὶ γενέσθαι, Kusebius, Heel. List.
vill. 2); and the cruel decree was so rigidly enforced that a special
name of reproach (traditores), together with the heaviest censures
of the Church, was laid upon those Christians who betrayed the
sacred trust (Bingham, Antiquities, Book xvi, Ch. vi. 25). At
such a period critical revision or even the ordinary care of devout
transcribers must have disappeared before the pressure of the
times; fresh copies of the New Testament would have to be
made in haste to supply the room of those seized by the enemies
of our Faith; and when made they were to circulate by stealth
among persons whose lives were in jeopardy every hour. Hence
arose the need, when the tempest was overpast, of transcribing
many new manuscripts of the New Testament, the rather as the
Church was now receiving vast accessions of converts within her
pale. Eusebius of Caesarea, the Neclesiastical Historian, seems
to have taken the lead in this happy labour; his extensive learn-
ing, which by the aid of certain other less commendable qualities
had placed him high in Constantine’s favour, rendered it natural
that the Emperor should employ his services for furnishmg with
fifty copies of Scripture the Churches of his new capital, Constan-

produced this passage among others to shew (what in itself is quite true) that
‘Clement frequently quotes from memory.”

25—2

988 ON THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT, INCLUDING

tinople (see above, p. 25, note 1). Eusebius’ deep interest in
Biblical studies is exhibited in several of his surviving works, as
well as in his Canons for harmonising the Gospels (see p.50): and
he would naturally betake himself for the text of his fifty codices
to the Library founded at his Episcopal city of Caesarea by the
martyr Pamphilus, the dear friend from whom he derived his
own familiar appellation Husebius Pamphili. Into this Library
Pamphilus had gathered manuscripts of Origen as well as of
other theologians, of which Eusebius made an index (τοὺς πίνα-
kas παρεθέμην: Lccles. Hist. v1. 32); from this collection Cod.
H of St Paul and others are stated to have been derived, nay
even Cod. 8 in its Old Testament portion (see p. 47 and note),
which is expressly declared to have been corrected to the Hexa-
pla of Origen. Indeed we know from Jerome (Comment. in
Lpist. ad Tit.) that the very autograph (“ipsa authentica’’) of
Origen’s Hexapla was used by himself at Caesarea, and Mont-
faucon (Praeliminaria in Hexapl. Chap. 1. 5) cites from one
manuscript the following subscription to Ezekiel, ‘O EvoéBtos
ἐγὼ σχόλια παρέθηκα. Ilaydiros καὶ Εὐσέβιος ἐδιωρθώσαντο.

7. We are thus warranted, as well from direct evidence as
from the analogy of the Old Testament, to believe that Eusebius
mainly resorted for his Constantinopolitan Church-books to the
codices of Pamphilus, which might once have belonged to Ori-
gen. What critical corrections (if any) he ventured to make in
the text on his own judgment is not so clear. Not that there is
the least cause to believe, with Dr Nolan (Inquiry into the Inte-
grity of the Greek Vulgate, p. 27) that Eusebius had either the
power or the will to suppress or tamper with the great doctrinal
texts 1 John v. 7; 1 Tim. ui. 16; Acts xx. 28; yet we cannot
deny that his prepossessions may have tempted him to arbitrary
alterations in other passages, which had no direct bearing on the
controversies of his age. Codd. NB are quite old enough to
have been copied under his inspection, and it is certainly very
remarkable that these two early manuscripts omit one whole
paragraph (Mark xvi. 9—16) with his sanction, if not after his
example (see below, Chap. 1x). Thus also in Matth. xxin. 35
Cod. &, with no other countenance than we have before men-
tioned (p. 221, note), discards υἱοῦ Bapaxlov, for which change
Eusebius (sé/entto) is literally the only authority among the Fa-

RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 389

thers, Irenaeus and even Origen retaining the words, in spite of
their obvious difficulty. When we shall come to know more of
this venerable codex, its agreement with the readings of Eusebius
may become more decided than we are yet aware of. All we can
see of it at present shows considerable resemblance to its con-
temporary B, with as considerable departures from it, while
“the state of the text, as proceeding from the first scribe, may
be regarded as very rough’ (Tregelles, N. 7. Part 11. p. 2).
The relation in which Cod. δὲ stands to the other four chief
manuscripts of the Gospels, may be partially estimated from the
transcript of four pages already published by Tischendorf (see
Ρ. 78). Of the 312 variations from the common text therein
noted, & stands alone in 45, in 8 agrees with ABCD united
(much of C, however, is lost in these passages), with ABC to-
gether 31 times, with ABD 14, with AB 13, with D alone 10,
with B alone but once (Mark 1. 27), with C alone once: with
several authorities against AB 39 times, with A against B 52,
with B against A 98. Hence the discovery of this precious
document has so far done little to uphold Cod. B (which seems
the more correctly written, and probably the more valuable of
the two) in its more characteristic and singular readings, but has
made the mutual divergencies of the very oldest critical authori-
ties more patent and perplexing than ever.

8. Codd. $B were apparently anterior to the age of Jerome,
the latest ecclesiastical writer whose testimony need be dwelt
upon, since from his time downwards the stream of extant and
direct manuscript evidence, beginning with Codd. AC, flows on
without interruption. Jerome’s attention was directed to the cri-
ticism of the Greek Testament by his early Biblical studies, and
the knowledge he thus obtained had full scope for its exercise
when he was engaged on revising the Old Latin version (see
p- 261). In his so often cited Praefatio ad Damasum, prefixed to
his recension of the Gospels, he complains of certain “ codices,
quos a Luciano et Hesychio nuncupatos, paucorum hominum
asserit perversa contentio,” and those not of the Old Testament
alone, but also of the New. This obscure and passing notice of
corrupt and (apparently) interpolated copies has been made the
foundation of more than one theory as fanciful as ingenious.
Jerome further informs us that he had adopted in his translation

390 ON THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT, INCLUDING

the Canons which Eusebius “ Alexandrinum secutus Ammonium”
(see pp. 50—83) had invented, or first brought into vogue; stating,
and in his usual fashion somewhat exaggerating’, an evil these
Canons helped to remedy, the mixing up of the matter peculiar
to one Evangelist in the narrative of another (see p. 11). Hence
we might naturally expect that the Greek manuscripts he would
view with special favour, were the same as Eusebius had ap-
proved before him. In the scattered notices throughout his
works, Jerome sometimes speaks but vaguely of ““ quaedam ex-
emplaria tam Graeca quam Latina” (Luke xxu. 43—4, almost
in the words of Hilary, his senior); or appeals to readings “in
quibusdam exemplaribus et maxim in Graecis codicibus” (Mark
xvi. 14): occasionally we hear of “ multi et Graeci et Latini codi-
ces” (John vii. 53), or “‘ vera exemplaria’” (Matth. v. 22; xxi. 31),
or “antiqua exemplaria” (Luke ix. 23), without specifying in
which language: Mark xvi. 9—20 “in raris fertur Evangeliis,”
since “omnes Gracciae libri paene”’ do not contain it® In two
places, however, he gives a more definite account of the copies he
most regarded. In Galat. ili. 1 τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι is omit-
ted by Jerome, because it is not contained “in exemplaribus
Adamantii,” although (as he elsewhere informs us) “et Graeca
exemplaria hoc errore confusa sint.”” The other passage has been
alluded to already (p. 266): in some Latin copies of Matth. xxiv.
36 neque filius is added, ‘‘ quum in Graecis, et maxime Adamantii
et Pierii exemplaribus, hoc non habeatur adscriptum.” Pierius
the presbyter of Alexandria, elsewhere called by Jerome “the
younger Origen” (Cat. Scriptt. Eccl. 1. p. 128), has been deprived
by fortune of the honour due to his merit and learning. A
contemporary, perhaps the teacher of Pamphilus (Huseb. Keel.
Hist, vit. 82) at Caesarea, his copies of Scripture would naturally
be preserved with those of Origen in the great Library of that
city. Here they were doubtless seen by Jerome when, to his
deep joy, he found Origen’s writings copied in Pamphilus’ hand

1 Magnus siquidem hic in nostris codicibus error inolevit, dum quod in eadem
re alius Evangelista plus dixit, in alio, quia minus putaverint, addiderunt, Vel
dum eundem sensum alius aliter expressit, ille qui unum e quatuor primum legerat,
ad ejus exemplum ceteros quoque existimaverit emendandos. Unde accidit ut
apud nos mixta sint omnia (Praef. ad Damasum).

* The precise references may be seen in Tischendorf’s, and for the most part
more exactly in Tregelles’ V. 7’. That on Matth, xxiv, 36 is Tom VIL. p. 199, or
VI. Ρ. &4; on Galat, ili, 1 is Tom, vir, pp. 418, 487.

RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 391

(Cat. Scriptt. Eccl., ubt supra), which volumes Acacius and
Euzoius, elder contemporaries of Jerome himself, had taken pious
care to repair and renew (bid. 1. p. 131; ad Marcel. Ep. cX1t).
It is not therefore wonderful if, employing as they did and set-
ting a high value on precisely the same manuscripts of the
N. T., the readings approved by Origen, Eusebius and Jerome
should closely agree.

9. Epiphanius [d. 403], who wrote at about the same period
as Jerome, distinguishes in his note on Luke xxii. 44 (Tom. τι.
p- 86) between the uncorrected copies (ἀδιορθώτοις), and those used
by the Orthodox?. Of the function of the ‘“ corrector” (διορθω-
τὴς) of an ancient manuscript we have spoken several times
before (pp. 46, 383 note, 385 note): but a system was devised by
Professor J. L. Hug of Freyburg in 1808 (Hinlectung), and main-
tained, though with some modifications, by J. F. Hichhorn, which
assigned to these occasional, and (as they would seem to be)
unsystematic labours of the reviser, a foremost place in the criti-
cism of the N. T. Hug conceived that the process of corruption
had been going on so rapidly and uniformly from the Apostolic
age downwards, that by the middle of the third century the state
of the text in the general mass of codices had degenerated into
the form exhibited in Codd. D. 1. 13. 69. 124 of the Gospels,
the Old Latin and Thebaic (he would now have added the
Curetonian Syriac) versions, and to some extent in the Peshito
and in the citations of Clement of Alexandria and of Origen in
his early works. To this uncorrected text he gave the name of
κοινὴ ἔκδοσις, and that it existed, substantially in the inter-
polated shape now seen in Cod. D, the Old Latin and Cureton’s
Syriac, as early as the second century, need not be doubted.
What we may fairly dispute is that it ever had extensive
circulation or fair repute in the Churches whose vernacular

1 This same writer testifies to a practice already partially employed, of using
breathings, accents, and stops in copies of Holy Scripture. Ἐπειδὴ δέ τινες κατὰ
προσῳδίαν ἔστιξαν Tas γραφὰς καὶ περὶ τῶν προσῳδῶν τάδε" ὀξεῖα΄, δασεῖα“, βαρεῖα",
WAH’, περισπωμένη , ἀπόστροφος᾽, μακρὰ ---, ὑφὲν uv, βραχεῖα v, ὑποδιαστολή,.
Ὡσαύτως καὶ περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν σημείων κιτ.λ. (Epiphan. De Wensur. c. 2, Tom. 117.
Ρ. 237 Migne). This passage may tend to confirm the statements made above,
ῬΡ. 39—41I, respecting the presence of such marks in very ancient codices, though
on the whole I would not quite vouch for Sir F, Madden’s opinion as regards
Cod, A.

392 ON THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT, INCLUDING

language was Greek. This “common edition” Hug supposes
to have received three separate emendations in the middle of
the third century; one by Origen in Palestine, which he thinks
Jerome adopted and approved; two others by Hesychius and
Lucian (a presbyter of Antioch and Martyr), in Egypt and Syria
respectively, both which Jerome condemned (see p. 389), and
Pope Gelasius (492—6) declared to be apocryphal’. To Origen’s
recension he referred such copies as A. K. M. 42. 106. 114. 116.
253 of the Gospels, the Philoxenian Syriac, the quotations of
Chrysostom and Theodoret: to Hesychius the Alexandrine co-
dices BCL; to Lucian the Byzantine documents EFGHSV and
the mass of later books. The practical effect of this elaborate
theory would be to accord to Cod. A a higher place among our
authorities than some recent editors have granted it; its corre-
spondence with Origen in many characteristic readings would
thus be admitted and accounted for. But in truth Hug’s whole
scheme is utterly baseless, as regards historical fact, and most
insufficiently sustained by internal proof. Jerome’s slight and
solitary mention of the copies of Lucian and Hesychius abun-
dantly evinces their narrow circulation and the low esteem in
which they were held; and even Hichhorn perceived that there
was no evidence whatever to shew that Origen had attempted
a formal revision of the text. ‘The passages cited above, both
from Eusebius and Jerome (see pp. 388, 390)—and no others
are known to bear on the subject—will carry us no farther than
this :—that these Fathers had access to codices of the N. T. once
possessed by Adamantius, and here and there, perhaps, retouched
by his hand. The manuscripts copied by Pamphilus (p. 390)
were those of Origen’s own works; and while we have full and
detailed accounts of what he accomplished for the Greek versions
of the Old Testament, no hint has been thrown out by any
ancient writer that he carried his pious labour into the criticism
of the New. On the contrary, he seems to disclaim the task in a

1 “Evangelia, quae falsavit Lucianus apocrypha.” ‘‘ Evangelia quae falsavit
Esitius (a/ii Hesychius vel Isicius] apocrypha,” occur separately in the course of a
long list of spurious books (such as the Gospels of Thaddaeus, Matthias, Peter,
James, that ‘“nomine Thomae quo utuntur Manichaei,” &c.) in Appendix II, to
Gelasius’ works in Migne’s Patrologia, Tom. Lrx. p. 162 [A.D. 494]. But the
authenticity of these decrees is far from certain, and as we hear of these falsified
Gospels nowhere else, Gelasius’ knowledge of them might have been derived from
what he had read in Jerome’s Praef. ad Damasum.

RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 393

sentence now extant only in the old Latin version of his works,
where to a notice of his attempt to remove diversity of reading
from codices of the Septuagint by the help of “the other edi-
tions” (κριτηρίῳ χρησάμενοι ταῖς λοιπαῖς ἐκδόσεσιν, 1.6. the
versions of Aquila and the rest), he is represented to add “In
exemplaribus autem Novi Testamenti, hoc ipsum me posse facere
sine periculo non putavi” (Origen, Tom. 111. p. 671).

10. Hue’s system of recensions was devised as a corrective
to those of Bengel (see p. 323) and Griesbach (p. 834), which
have been adequately discussed in Chapter v. The veteran
Griesbach spent his last effort as a writer in bringing to notice
the weak points of Hug’s case, and in claiming him, where he
rightly could, asa welcome ally}. But neither did Hug’s scheme,
nor that propounded by Scholz some years later (see p. 338),
obtain the general credit and acceptance which had once been
conceded to Griesbach’s. It was by this time plainly seen that
not only were such theories unsupported by historical testimony
(to which indeed the Professor of Halle had been too wise to
lay claim), but that they failed to account for more than a part,
and that usually a small part, of the phenomena disclosed by
minute study of our critical materials. All that can be in-
ferred from searching into the history of the sacred text amounts
to no more than this: that extensive variations, arising no doubt
from the wide circulation of the New Testament in different
regions and among nations of diverse languages, subsisted from
the earliest period to which our records extend. Beyond this
point our investigations cannot be carried, without indulging in

* Griesbach rejoices to have Hug’s assent ‘‘in eo, in quo disputationis de
veteribus N. T. recensionibus cardo vertitur; nempe extitisse, inde a secundo et
tertio seculo, plures sacri textfis recensiones, quarum una, si Evangelia spectes,
supersit in Codice D, altera in Codd. BCL, alia in Codd. EFGHS et quae sunt
reliqua” (Meletemata, p. lxviii, prefixed to Commentarius Criticus, Pars 11. 1811).
I suppose that Tregelles must have overlooked this decisive passage (probably the
last its author wrote for the public eye) when he states that Griesbach now
‘‘ virtually gave up his system” as regards the possibility of ‘‘ drawing an actual
line of distinction between his Alexandrian and Western recensions” (Account of
Printed Text, p. 91). He certainly shows, throughout his Commentarius Criticus,
that Origen does not lend him the support he had once anticipated; but he still
held that the theory of a triple recension was the very hinge on which the whole
question tured, and clung to that theory as tenaciously as ever.

394 ON THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT, INCLUDING

pleasant speculations which may amuse the fancy, but cannot
inform the sober judgment.

Yet is it true that we are thus cast upon the wide ocean
without a compass or a guide? Can no clue be found that
may conduct us through the tangled maze? Is there no other
method of settling the text of the New Testament than by
collecting and marshalling and scrutinizing the testimony of
thousands of separate documents, now agreeing, now at issue
with each other :—manuscripts, versions, ecclesiastical writers,
whose mutual connexion and interdependence, so far as they
exist (and to some extent they do and must exist), defy all our
skill and industry to detect and estimate them aright? This
would surely be a discouraging view of critical science as ap-
plied to the sacred volume, and it is by no means warranted by
proved and admitted facts. Elaborate systems have failed, as
might have been looked for from the first: it was premature
to frame them in the present stage of enquiry, while the know-
ledge we possess of the actual contents of our extant autho-
rities is imperfect, vague and fragmentary; while our conclu-
sions are liable to be disturbed from time to time by the rapid
accession of fresh materials, of whose character we are still
quite ignorant. But if we be incompetent to devise theories
on a grand or imposing scale, a more modest and a safer course
is open. Men of the present generation may be disqualified for
taking a general survey of the whole domain of this branch of
divine learning, who may yet be employed, serviceably and with
honour, in cultivating each one for himself some limited and
humble field of special research, to which his taste, his abilities
or opportunities have attached him: those persons may usefully
improve a farm, that cannot hope to conquer a kingdom. Of
the long array of uncollated manuscripts which swell our cata-
logues (see p. 225), let the student choose from the mass a few
within his reach which he may deem worthy of complete exami-
nation; or exhaust the information some ecclesiastical writer of
the first six centuries can afford ; or contribute what he can to an
exact acquaintance with some good ancient version, ascertaining
the genius of its language and (where this is attainable) the
literary history of its text’. If, in the course of such quiet

1 Professor Ellicott has done good service to the Church in directing fresh
attention to the ancient translations, and animating the languid and superficial

RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 395

labours, he shall mark (as a patient observer will find cause to
mark) resemblances and affinities more than accidental, between
documents of widely different ages and countries; he will not
only be contributing to the common stock what cannot fail to
be available hereafter as raw material, but will be helping to
solve that great problem which has hitherto in part eluded the
most earnest enquiries, the investigation of the true laws and
principles of COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.

The last-mentioned term has been happily applied by Tre-
gelles to that delicate and important process, whereby we seek
to determine the comparative value, and trace the mutual rela-
tion, of authorities of every kind upon which the original text of
the N. T. is based. Thus explained (and in this enlarged sense
scholars have willingly accepted it’), its researches may be pur-
sued with diligence and interest, without reference to the main-
tenance or refutation of any particular system or scheme of
recensions. ‘The mode of procedure is experimental and tenta-
tive, rather than dogmatical; the facts it gradually develops
will eventually (as we trust) put us on the right road, although for
the present we meet with much that is uncertain, perplexing,
ambiguous. It has already enabled critics in some degree to

theologians of the day by his own researches (see p. 229) as well in our kindred
tongue the Gothic, as in those ‘‘somewhat intractable languages” the Coptic and
Ethiopic. The versions are full as valuable in aid of the criticism of the Ν, T. as
of its interpretation, to which he chiefly applies them.

1 «JT do not accept Mr Scrivener as an accurate expositor of my views, and as
having introduced the term ‘ Comparative Criticism,’ I may reasonably ask that
it may, if used at all, be employed according to my own definition” (Tregelles,
Additions to the Fourth volume of Horne’s Introduction, p. 756). I should be
really grieved to misrepresent my respected fellow-labourer, and subjoin his defi-
nition, as set down in the two several passages to which he refers. I had thought
it somewhat less simple, though much to the same purport, as that given above in
the text. ‘‘By Comparative Criticism I mean such an investigation as shows
what the character of a document is,—nct simply from its age, whether known or
supposed,—but from its actual readings being shown to be in accordance or not
with certain other documents” (Account of Printed Text, p. 132). ‘‘ We thus reach
the mode of demonstrating the value of documents by Comparative Criticism; that
is, by showing, in cases of explicit ancient testimony, what MSS. and versions do,
as a fact, accord with readings so established; and thus we are able, as to the text
in general, to rely with especial confidence on the witnesses whose character has
thus been proved” (Horne, p. 148). As to his reiterated assertion that by ‘‘com-
parative criticism” he intends ‘‘not the single evidence of one MS., one version,
or one Father” (Additions, p. 756), I ask with unaffected innocence, who ever
supposed or assumed that he did mean any thing of the sort ?

996 ON THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT, INCLUDING

classify the documents with which they have to deal; it may
possibly lead them, at some future period, to the establishment
of principles more general, and therefore more simple, than we
can now conceive likely or even possible to be attained to.

11. In the course of investigations thus difficult and preca-
rious, designed to throw light on a matter of such vast conse-
quence as the genuine condition of the text of Scripture, one
thing would appear almost too clear for argument, too self-
evident to be disputed,—that it is both our wisdom and our
duty to weigh the momentous subject at issue in all its parts,
shutting out from the mind no source of information which can
reasonably be supposed capable of influencing our decision.
Nor can such a course become less right or expedient because it
must perforce involve us in laborious, extensive and prolonged
examination of a vast store of varied and voluminous testimony :
it is essential that divines strive to come to definite conclusions
respecting disputed points of sacred criticism; it is not neces-
sary that these conclusions be drawn within a certain limited
period, either this year, or even in the lifetime of our generation.
Hence such a plan as that advocated by Lachmann (see pp. 341
—2), for abridging the trouble of investigation by the arbitrary
rejection of the great mass of existing evidence, must needs be
condemned for its rashness by those who think their utmost pains
well bestowed in such a cause; nor can we consistently praise
the determination of others, who, shunning the more obvious
errors into which Lachmann fell, yet follow his example in con-
structing the text of the N.T. on a foundation somewhat less
narrow, but scarcely more firm than his. As the true science of
Biblical criticism is in real danger of suffering harm from the
efforts of men of this school, it cannot be out of place if we
examine the pleas which have been urged in vindication of their
scheme, and assign (as briefly as we may) our reasons for be-
lieving that its apologists are but labouring in vain.

12. ‘The most conspicuous and uncompromising advocate
of the system referred to, is Dr 8. P. Tregelles, whose edition of
the Greek Testament, now brought down to the end of the
Gospels, has been described in Chap. v. (pp. 346—8). This

industrious and earnest man has effectually persuaded himself

RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 397

that more than nine-tenths of our extant manuscripts and other
authorities should be utterly rejected and lost sight of, when we
come to amend the text, and try to restore it to its primitive
purity. The true readings of the Greek N.T., according to
his notion, must be sought exclusively in the most ancient docu-
ments, especially in the earliest uncial codices. From this propo-
sition it follows, as a corollary at once direct and unavoid-
able, that “the mass of recent documents [i.e. those written
in cursive characters from the tenth century downwards] possess
no determining voice, in a question as to what we should receive
as genuine readings” (Account of Printed Text, p. 138). “We
are able,” he boldly adds, “to take the few documents whose
evidence is proved to .be trustworthy, and safely discard from
present consideration the eighty-nine ninetieths, or whatever
else their numerical proportion may be” (ibid.). Nor has he
shrunk from acting on this principle firmly and consistently,
in the prosecution of that work on which his reputation must
mainly rest, his edition of the Greek Testament. In construct-
ing his text, and in arranging the authorities for it in his notes,
he treats the Lectionaries and the great mass of cursive manu-
scripts as if they had no existence. ‘The readings of three select
copies in the Gospels, to which will be added a fourth in the
Acts (see p. 348), are carefully recorded, and are allowed at least
their due weight in the decision of critical questions; but these
copies have attained such distinction on internal grounds alone ;
because the text they preserve approaches that which in the
editor’s judgment an ancient text ought to be. Of the uncial
documents which he retains, several are as recent as the tenth or
eleventh century (Evan. FGSUX), and it is very hard to per-
ceive why they deserve more attention, on the score of age, than
the numerous cursives extant, which bear the same date’, Tre-
gelles’ preference of these uncials cannot. be owing to the cha-
vacter in which they are written; for this plea (in itself too
puerile for grave discussion) would have compelled him to em-
ploy about 65 of the Lectionaries he discards (see p. 211); yet I
have tried in vain to frame reasons for his procedure in this
respect less open to the charge of arbitrary caprice.

1 Dated cursive codices of the eleventh century (as may be seen from Chap. 11.»

Sect. m1.) are quite common. A list of those dated in the tenth is given p. 36,
note 2.

898 ON THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT, INCLUDING

13. Brevis vita, ars longa. For this lawful cause, if for no
other, the most ardent student of Biblical criticism would fain
embrace some such system as Dr Tregelles advocates, if only he
could do so in tolerable safety. The process of investigation
might thus be diminished twenty-fold, and the whole subject
brought within a compass not too vast for one man’s diligence
or the space of an ordinary life-time. The simplicity and com-
parative facility of this process of resorting to the few for in-
struction hitherto supposed to be diffused among the many, has
created in its favour a strong and not unnatural prejudice, which
has yielded, so far as it has yet yielded at all, to nothing but the
stubborn opposition of indisputable facts. It will also readily ἡ
be admitted, that certain principles, not indeed peculiar to this
theory, but brought by it into greater prominence, are themselves
most reasonable and true. No one need question, for example,
that “if the reading of the ancient authorities in general is
unanimous, there can be but little doubt that it should be
followed, whatever may be the later testimonies; for it is most
improbable that the independent testimony of early MSS., ver-
sions and Fathers should accord with regard to something en-
tirely groundless” (Tregelles, N. 7., Introductory Notice, p. 2),
No living man, possessed of a tincture of scholarship, would
dream of setting up testimony exclusively modern against the
“unanimous”? voice of antiquity. The point on which we
insist, and find it so difficult to impress on Dr Tregelles and
his allies, is briefly this:—that the evidence of his “ancient
authorities’? is anything but unanimous; that they are per-
petually at variance with each other, even if you limit the term
“ancient” within the narrowest bounds. Shall it include, among
the manuscripts of the Gospels, none but the five oldest copies
Codd. κα ABCD? The reader has but to open the first recent
critical work he shall meet with, to see them scarcely ever in
unison; perpetually divided two against three, or perhaps four
against one. All the readings these venerable monuments con-
tained must of course be ancient, or they would not be found
there; but they cannot all be true. So again, if our search be
extended to the versions and primitive Fathers, the same phe-
nomenon unfolds itself, to our grievous perplexity and disap-
pointment. How much is contained in Cureton’s Syriac or the
Old Latin for which no Greek original can now be alleged? Do

RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 399

not the earliest ecclesiastical writers describe readings as existing
and current in their copies, of which few traces can be met with
at present’? Dean Alford, who throws himself heartily into
the debate in defence of Tregelles’ views, proposes to us the
question, “ What right have we to set virtually aside...the agree-
ment in the main of our oldest uncials, at the distance of one
or two centuries,—of which, owing probably to the results of
persecution, we have no MS, remains,—with the citations of the
primitive fathers, and with the earliest versions 2” (N. T. Proleg.
Vol. 1. p. 91, 4th edn.). We answer without hesitation, no right
whatever: where the oldest of these authorities really agree, we
accept their united testimony as practically conclusive; it is not
at all our design, as the Dean seems to apprehend, to “seek our
readings from the later uncials, supported as they usually are by
the mass of cursive MSS.;” but to employ their confessedly
secondary evidence in those numberless instances, when their
elder brethren are hopelessly at variance. This course, indeed,
has just been adopted by Alford himself not only in the case
of the Apocalypse, where the great scarcity of uncials might
almost force the cursives upon his attention, but of the Catholic
Kpistles, and (if I mistake not his purpose in a forthcoming
edition) of the Pauline Epistles also. In this part of his work,
the cursive collations, first of Scrivener, then of his predecessors,
are cited in Alford’s margin wherever the uncials differ from
each other; yet it is not easy to reconcile this practice (which
surely deserves to be imitated) with his summary rejection, even
in his last edition of the Gospels, of a// cursive testimony except
Codd. 1. 33. 69. Evst. y. We do not claim for the recent
documents the high consideration and deference fitly reserved
for a few of the oldest; just as little do we think it right to
pass them by in silence, and allow to them no more weight or
importance than if they had never been written. If Dean
Alford’s latest practice is more to be regarded than his theory
of two years old, confitentem habes rewm that the course he
pursued in the Gospels is less likely to lead to trustworthy re-
sults than the other.

1 e.g, Matth. i. 18; Act. viii. 37 for Irenaeus: Act. xiii. 33 for Origen. It is
rare indeed that the express testimony of a Father is so fully confirmed by the
oldest copies as in John i. 28, where Βηθανίᾳ, said by Origen to be σχεδὸν ἐν πᾶσι
τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις, actually appears in %* ABO*,

400 ON THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT, INCLUDING

14. On one point, I think, we are still at issue, the degree
in which the most ancient documents are at variance with each
other. Resuming from Alford the context which we cited above
(p. 399), we next read “I say, the agreement in the main :—for
Mr Scrivener’s instances of discrepancy are in vain used by him
to produce an impression, which we know would be contrary to
the fact in the majority of instances” (Alford, wbi supra). But
is it really so? Iam fully aware that in a field so wide as the
criticism of the N.T., those who dexterously select their ex-
amples may prove just what they will. More anxious, therefore,
to convince opponents than to fight with shadows or beat the air,
T determined that the instances I discussed should be chosen by
Dr Tregelles, rather than by me. He had alleged seventy-two
passages from various parts of the N.T., as a kind of sample
of some two or three thousand he reckons to exist there, wherein
‘“‘the more valuable ancient versions (or some of them) agree in
a particular reading or in which such a reading has distinct
patristic testimony, and the mass of MSS. stand in opposition to
such a lection, [while] there are certain copies which habitually
uphold the older reading” (Account of Printed Text, p. 148).
Taking as an adequate specimen of the whole (and that, with no
consciousness of unhandsome dealing) those seven of Tregelles’
texts which are contained in the Gospel of St Mark (Codex Augi-
ensis, Introd. pp. ix. seq.), | endeavoured to prove that in each one
of these cases the ancient evidence was not unevenly balanced,
whatever might be pronounced the true reading in each separate
passage; that the mass of the later evidence was almost always
as well supported by old manuscripts, versions and Fathers, as
was the reading it opposed. If, as Dean Alford states, these
“instances of discrepancy produce an impression contrary to the
fact in the majority of instances,” the fault of unskilful selection
rests not with me: if on the other hand they shall prove fair
specimens of the whole list, we submit that their impartial con-
sideration will uphold a principle which it was certainly not
Tregelles’ purpose to help to maintain. When, however, an
objection has been taken to the sufficiency of one set of illustra-
tions of a principle, the shortest and only satisfactory method is
at once to lay them aside, and substitute for them others which
may be less exposed to doubt. Dean Alford holds it just and
necessary that the Curetonian Syriac “on the testimony of which

RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 401

Tregelles very much relies,” should form an element in this
inquiry, our new series of examples shall consist of the first
twelve passages in the Gospels, extant as well in that version as
in Codd. ABCD, the readings of which in Cod. δὲ have hitherto
been made known by Tischendorf in his Notctia Cod. Sinaitict
(see above, pp. 28, 77). Undue selection, it is presumed, will thus
be deemed impossible ; and in setting forth the exact state of the
evidence on both sides in the most concise form that may be
attainable, we trust to enable the reader to judge for himself
whether in these instances, taken up at random, the mass of
ancient documents as a rule conspire to lead us one way, the
more recent another’.

(1) Luke viii. 30. λεγιων R*B*D*L, Pesh. Cure. Philox. Syriac
ea Memph., and of course the Latin versions: eyewy B*

teste Mai: λεγαιων δὲ 1)": λεγεων ACEFGHKMRSUVXTAAG, all
known cursives, the margin of the Philoxenian and the Received
text.

(2) Ibid. v. 37. ΤΨεργεσηνων 8*N*C?LPX. 1. 13. 22. 33. 118.
131. 157. 209. 251 (Scholia in 237. 239. 259), Memph. Arm. Aeth.
Arab.: Γερασηνων BC*D, Theb., all Latin versions (even those in
A. 130): Τεσινῶν 69: Tadapnvev with the common text N°AEGHK
MRSUVTAA and all other cursives (yadapwwv b**), Pesh. Cure.
Philox. Syriac, Goth.

(3) Ibid. v. 38. ἐδέετο of the Received text 8*C*EGHKMRSU
VIAA, all cursives except one: εδειτο N’BC*LX, 33. Cyr.: εδεειτο
AP: ypwra 1). Versions here and in (5) are useless to us.

(4) Luke ix. 13. aprovo πεντε N: ἀαρτοι πεντε B: erra αρτοι C:
mevte apto. Received text, ADE. &ec., in fact all manuscripts and
versions, including Cureton’s.

(5) Ibid. v.19. εἰπαν NBD, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Alford: εἰπὸν Received text with ACEGHKLMRSUVXTAAE, all
cursives.

(6) Ibid. νυ. 23. καθημεραν of the Received text is found in
N*NABKLMR2 1. 13. 33. 69.124. 131. 251. 253, Scrivener’s avw,
Evst. 48. z**, and no doubt in many others, where, because there is
no variation from the common text, its presence was not expressly
noted. It is rendered in all three Syriac versions (though the mar-
gin of Philox. marks its absence from some copies), Theb. Memph.

oth. Arm. (Aeth. after the next xa) f g’. Vulg. Jerome has
it once expressly, as the reading of old copies (see p. 390), and on
Matth, x. 38 names it as the reading of another Gospel, which is

1 A*, B*, &c, mean readings of A, B, ὅσ, by the first hand; A2, B2, &c., by a
second; A%, B3, &c, by a yet later hand.

402 ON THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT, INCLUDING

not likely to be Mark viii. 34. Καθ᾿ ἡμέραν is omitted in CDEF"*GH
SUVXTAA, 17 out of 22 cursives collated by Scrivener, and some
120 others: ina. ὦ. ὁ. 6. ff. 1. q. of the Old Latiu, Sax. (after some
codices of Vulg.), Origex, Chr.(?), and others.

(7) Ibid. v. 26: λογους of the Received text appears in NABCZ,
all known codices and versions except D, Old Latin a. 6. ἰ., Cureton’s

Syriac (ΟἹ Reel, ἢ ἐπέβς ον τες Ἢ and Origen τ. 298, Origen silently

reads Aoyous’ τ. 296, though the context does not require it.

(8) bid. v. 34. ἐπεσκιαζεν NBL Evst. 47. x**, perhaps 1?°. 10?*,
(uncial Lectionaries) and a: εἐπεσκιασεν of the Received text ACDE
FGHKMPRSUVXTAA, all cursives, all versions (except a), even
Cureton’s Syriac. In Matth. xvii. 5, D* alone reads the imperfect,

(9) Luke x. 1. The first καὶ of the common text (after κυριος)
is rejected by BLE. 3. Pesh. Syriac (which has ‘from his disciples”
in its room), Memph. Aeth.: it is found in NACD, the whole mass
of codices, Cureton’s, the Philox., and the Latin versions, Eusebius
and Tertullian.

(10) Jbid. The next variation is more interesting. To érepous
ἑβδομήκοντα of the Received text, δυο is added by BDMR’. 1 (Tre-
gelles). 42. (yp™ καὶ, ἑβδομήκοντα δύο of Stephens’ margin of 1550 must
refer to his β or Cod. Ὁ), Cureton’s Syriac, Arm., Old Latin, a. c. 6. ἰ.,
the Latin of Cod. 130 (see above, Luke viii. 37),and Vulg. But dvo
is omitted in NACEGHKLSUVXTAAZ (“et ACLAZ in indice
capitum” Tregelles), all cursives, Pesh. and Philox. Syriac, Memph.,
Goth., Aeth., Old Latin 6. 7, Ivenaeus and Tertullian very expressly,
Eusebius ter. The ‘ Recognitions” falsely ascribed to Clement of
Rome, Epiphanius, Hilary, Augustine and some others receive dvo.

(11) Ibid. ava δυο δυο is read by BK. 13. 50. 51. 53, 54. 57.
63. 64. 69. 91. 114. 116. 122°. 145. 239. 248. 253. 254. 256. 300.
346, Scrivener’s adpvw, the Philoxenian margin (but obelized, see
p. 244). Pesh. and Cure. have “two two” without a preposition:
but this is the proper mode of rendering ava δύο in their language
(cf. Mark vi. 39; 40, Greek and Pesh.). Yet ava dvo of the Received
text is found in NACDEGHLMSU VXTAAZ, the majority of cur-
sives, in Eusebius twice. “ Binos” of a. ὦ. ce. f Vulg. may seem
ambiguous, but leans to the common reading.

(12) Tbid. νυ. 25. καὶ of the Received text is omitted before
λέγων in NBLEe, Cureton’s Syriac, Memph. All other authorities
have it (including ACD and every known cursive manuscript), the
two other Syriac versions &c. .

1 “Tn Orig. quidem 1. 298 dubitari potest an recte τοὺς ἐμοὺς legatur, quum
praecedat οὔτε ἐπαισχυντέον αὐτὸν ἢ τοὺς λόγους αὐτοῦ, Sed continuo pergitur;
καὶ ὁ ἴσ...καὶ οἱ μιμηταὶ δὲ αὐτοῦ. Atque quo ante loco (I, 296) τοὺς ἐμοὺς λόγους
invenitur, contextu cert® non requiritur, λόγους," Tischend. in loc, ed. 1850.

2 The text of R is lost from ix. 43 to x. 3, but in the prefixed table of τίτλοι
we read, xed. λδ΄, περὶ τῶν ἀναδειχθέντων of’,

RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 403

15. These specimens will surely suffice for the purpose in
hand, and they are the first twelve we meet with wherein the
readings of δὲ ABCD and the Curetonian Syriac are as yet
available. I believe that Dean Alford will see that we have
changed the venue without much disturbing the verdict. In-
deed, since our previous instances were selected by Tregelles, while
the present are taken just as they stand in the open volume, it
is not surprising if these examples from St Luke prove more
favourable to the views we are urging than the others we exa-
mined in St Mark. The extent. of this “wonderful” harmony
of the most venerable uncial documents with the earliest versions,
ecclesiastical writers and each other, may now be estimated by
the facts before us. The two oldest manuscripts are 8 B: in
these 12 places they differ seven times and agree 5 times. Next
in age and value to these two are AC; it may be questioned
indeed whether they be much inferior, as critical authorities, and
they are certainly not a century younger than the best manu-
script extant. Now A supports the Received text in 11 of these
readings, C in 9, even δὲ 6 times, B but twice. The Cure-
tonian Syriac, too, on which so much (and I will not say an un-
due) stress is lain, divides its countenance pretty impartially:
it is found in company with D (whose affinity to it is well known,
see p. 103) six times, with A 5, with 8 4, with B 3, and C 2.
The peculiarities which distinguish D from other documents of
its date and importance do not much appear in these examples:
it coincides with δὲ 4 times, with A 5, with B3, with C 6: twice
it affords a lectio singularis among Greek manuscripts, once with
the aid of the Curetonian. Nor are the few later uncials, which
usually, do service to Cod. B, so constant in their allegiance
as some might have anticipated. Cod. L, which in the seven
passages chosen by ‘T'regelles from St Mark (Cod. Augiens.
Introd. pp. 1X, X, X111), never failed its ally save when there is
an hiatus, now deserts it six times out of the twelve: Cod. A,
which in St Mark sided with B five times out of seven, now
never favours it, except when all others do. The readings of
Codd. R &, &c., if scrutinized with the same minuteness, will
exhibit much the same result. Cod. &, especially, which has
been justly commended by Tregelles for “the goodness of its
text,” though defective in three of these twelve places, accords
with the Received text against Cod. B in 5 out of the remaining

26—2

404 ON THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT, INCLUDING

nine, with B against it twice, and twice with the two united.
In certain cases a good number of cursive manuscripts support
the form upheld by B, and (as in Luke x. 1, ava δυο δυο) much
help to recommend it, by shewing that the variation it presents
was widely diffused; sometimes the reading of Cod. B, being
further sustained by others of the first rank and by some valua-
ble cursives (Luke ix. 23), has been received into the textus
receptus, and no doubt rightly received, in spite of the oppo-
sition of the mass of later codices both uncial and cursive.

As regards the testimony of the Fathers the passages we have
lighted upon are not peculiarly instructive, and yet we have
enough to enable us to see how precarious and unsteady is the
help they can afford in the settlement of the sacred text. They
supply information valuable indeed for the purpose of illustrat-
ing each separate variation, but far too slight and uncertain
to be the groundwork of a theory or system of recensions. Oc-
casionally (as in the case of Origen in Luke ix. 26) it is hard to
say on which side their testimony should be ranged; at other
times (as with Jerome in Luke ix. 23) they simply attest the an-
tiquity of both forms in a doubtful passage ; while the most pro-
minent instance in which they can be applied in the examples
we are considering is Luke x. 1 (10), wherein the two chief
witnesses of the second century! adhere not to the reading of
the minority of copies whereof Cod. B is the Coryphaeus,

but to that of the numerical majority, headed as it is by
Codd. ἐξ ACD.

16. We are now in a condition to re-assert not less confi-
dently than ever, that the few most ancient records, whether
manuscripts, versions or Fathers, do not so closely agree among
themselves, as to supersede all further investigation, and to
render it needless so much as to examine the contents of later

1 Post enim duodecim apostolos septuaginta alios Dominus noster ante se
misisse invenitur; septuaginta autem nec octonario numero, neque denario (Irenaeus
146, Massuet). Tertullian, just a little later, compares the Apostles with the
twelve wells at Elim (Exod. xv. 27), the seventy with the threescore and ten
palm trees there (adv. Marc. tv. 24). Yet in the Recognitions of Clement, usually
assigned to the second or third century, the number adopted is seventy-two, “ vel
hoc modo recognité imagine Moysis” and of his elders, traditionally set down as
72.

RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 405

and more numerous authorities. As in the affairs of common
life, a previous resolution to exclude from the mind all but one
portion (and that in the matter before us a small portion) of the
facts of the case, can never lead to historical or scientific truth,
so he who ventures to discard nine-tenths or more of the extant
testimony which bears upon the text of Scripture, must end in
producing a work that will not satisfy the reasonable expecta-
tions of the thorough student, and may not long satisfy himself}.
Not that we maintain, or that any sober critic ever did maintain,
that numerical majority should decide a question of criticism,
or that the ancient few should be overborne by the mere mass of
the more recent many: still less would we assign to a codex of
the fourteenth century the same weight as rightfully pertains to
one of the fourth; such a course would be as unreasonable as
anything we have found cause to complain of in the argument of
our opponents. But not less startling is the proposition that
numbers shall possess no determining voice whatever in deciding
a question of various readings, and that a handful of documents
such as Codd. BL, the Old Latin version, the Curetonian Syriac
and the writings of Origen, if they would but present us with a
testimony tolerably consistent and uniform (which in point of
fact they refuse to do) should have power to silence all the
evidence which can be mustered against them, however vener-
able in age, or recommended by a long train of authorities of
various countries, extended over the course of full a thousand
years. If to deny these principles, and to withhold our con-
fidence from the conclusions they would lead to, be indeed “to
take as truth the plaint of the old tragedian, ἄνω ποταμῶν ἱερῶν
χωροῦσι maya” (Alford, N. T. Proleg. p. 92), and to force the
stream back again to its source; we must bear contentedly for the
time the imputation of folly, and as the science of Biblical criti-

1 Very pertinent to this matter is a striking extract from Reiche, given in
Bloomfield’s Critical Annotations on the Sacred Text, p. 5, note: ‘In multis sane
N. T. locis lectionis variae, iisque gravissimi argumenti, de vera scriptura judicium
firmum et absolutum, quo acquiescere possis, ferri nequit, nisi omnium subsidiorum
nostrorum alicujus auctoritatis suffragia, et interna veri falsique indicia, diligenter
explorata, justa lance expendantur...Quod in causa est, ut re non satis omni ex
parte circumspecta, non solum critici tantopere inter se dissentiant, sed etiam
singuli sententiam suam toties retractant atque commutent.” Partial views are in
candid minds the fruitful parents of a vacillating judgment.

400 ON THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT, INCLUDING

cism becomes more widely and accurately known, we promise
ourselves many companions in our reproach.

17. It only remains to speak of the second of the “ two
wonderful facts” which have persuaded Dean Alford to construct
anew his text of the N.T., without regard to the readings of
cursive or later uncial codices; namely, “‘ The very general con-
currence of the character of text of our earliest MSS., versions, and
Lathers, with that text which the soundest critical principles lead
us to adopt” (ibid. p. 91). What those critical principles are
may partly appear from the terms in which he speaks of the
Received text, as having attained its present form by the pro-
cess “of crumbling down salient points, softening irregularities,
conforming differences, and [I am sorry he should think it right
to add, see p. 375] favouring prevalent doctrines” (ἰδία. p. 92). In
other words, Alford regards the text of Cod. B and its compeers
as more probable on internal grounds than that of the later
copies, and on that account receives its testimony whensoever he
can make out a plausible case. <A single example will illus-
trate his meaning, unless I have quite failed to apprehend it.
Tn one of the twelve texts we have discussed above (p. 402)—
Luke ix. 834—he has adopted in his revised text the imperfect
form ἐπεσκίαζεν on the slight evidence of Bla (for he was not
then aware that & has the same reading), chiefly because ézre-
oxiacev, Which is found in ACD and the mass of copies, is in
his judgment derived from Matth. xvii. 5; and that on the ground
that ‘in even the earliest MSS. there has been constant tamper-
ing with the text of one Gospel to conform it to that of another”
(ἰδία. p. 91). I do not wish to controvert, I have tried to give
fair scope to such canons of internal evidence as are here laid
down (see Chap. yi. throughout): the only dispute that can well
arise is on the limits of their application, and the extent of the
influence which is due to them. One thing, however, is plain,
that this second reason assigned for maintaining the earlier
against the later documents is not ‘a fact” in the same sense
as the first was, capable of being established or refuted by the
induction of an adequate number of fairly selected proofs, but
must always remain to a great extent a matter for the exercise
of individual taste and feeling, whose elementary principles are
incapable of strict demonstration, and whose conclusions must in

RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 407

consequence be very doubtful and precarious. But the true
answer to all objections founded on the character of the later
manuscripts goes more directly to the point at issue. We do
not place the more modern witnesses in one scale, the older in
the other, and then decide numero non pondere which shall pre-
vail: we advocate the use of the cursive copies principally,
and indeed almost exclusively, where the ancient codices are
at variance; and if, in practice, this shall be found to amount to
a perpetual appeal to the younger witnesses, it is because in nine-
teen cases out of twenty, the elder w7// not agree. Nor even then
should we deem it safe, except perhaps in very exceptional in-
stances, to adopt as true a reading of the cursives, for which but
slender ancient authority or none can be produced. There is a
risk (we freely grant it) that in the long course of ages, and
through the influence of frequent transcription, differences should
be reconciled, rugged constructions made smooth, superficial
(if not real) contradictions explained away: there are beyond
question not a few readings pervading the more recent manu-
scripts which owe their origin to this source, and which the
consentient testimony of antiquity condemns beyond appeal.
But limiting the employment of later evidence, or at any rate its
determining influence, to the decision between several readings,
each of them extant in ancient records, we cannot devise any
just cause for the neglect it has received at the hands of modern
editors. Does any one suppose that the mass of our cursive
documents are only corrupt copies, or copies of copies, drawn
from existing uncials? Let the assertion be made and main-
tained, if it can with any show of reason; but if not, let us
frankly accept the sole alternative, that they are representa-
tives of other old copies which have long since perished, “ re-
spectable ancestors’”’ (as one has quaintly put the matter) “ who
live only in their descendants” (Long, Ciceronis Verrin. Orat.
Praef. p. vi). And to this conclusion we are irresistibly led
by a close study of the cursive manuscripts themselves. No
“one who has paid adequate attention to them can fail to be
struck with the ¢rdividual character impressed upon nearly all:
it is rare indeed that we find cause to suppose that one even
of the latest codices is a mere transcript of any now surviving ;
we repeatedly find, in those which on the whole recede but
little from the textus receptus, isolated readings for which no

408 ON THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT, INCLUDING

other authority can now be alleged than Cod. B or some such
monument of remote antiquity. That the testimony of the
cursives ought to be scrutinized, and suspected, and (when uncon-
Jirmed by other witnesses) as a rule set wholly aside, may be con-
ceded even by those who have laboured the most diligently to
collate and vindicate them; but we do trust that Lachmann and
Tregelles will be the last, among the editors of the N. T., who
will think they can be disposed of by the simple and compendi-
ous process of excluding them (the former entirely, the other
hardly less so) from the roll of critical authorities. If his most
recent labours are to be regarded as the model of his future
efforts (see p. 399), Dean Alford seems bound, in mere con-
sistency, to illustrate his next edition of the Gospels with a
further accession of various readings from the best cursive
codices; and the influence which such a practice must needs
have on the character of the text will plainly appear from com-
paring Tischendorf’s N.'T. of 1859, in whose critical commen-
tary the more recent codices have their due place, with that of
1849, where they appear but rarely, and never seem to influence
his decisions. The total sum of variations in the text of these
two books being 1292, in no less than 595* of these places he
has returned in 1859 to the Elzevir readings which he had be-
fore deserted, but to which fresh materials and greater expe-
rience had brought him back.

18. It is hoped that the general issue of the foregoing dis-
cussion may now be embodied in these three practical rules:

(1) That the true readings of the Greek New Testament
cannot safely be derived from any one set of authorities, whether
manuscripts, versions, or Fathers, but ought to be the result of
a patient comparison and careful estimate of the evidence sup-
plied by them all.

(2) ‘That where there is a real agreement between all the
documents prior to the tenth century, the testimony of later
manuscripts, though not to be rejected unheard, must be re-

1 Of the rest, no less than 430 places relate to modes of spelling (see Chap.
vut.), for which Tischendorf is now more willing than before to accept the oldest
manuscripts as his guides,

RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 409

garded with great suspicion, and, unless upheld by strong in-
ternal evidence, can hardly be adopted.

(3) That in the far more numerous cases where the most
ancient documents are at variance with each other, the later or
cursive copies are of much importance, as the surviving repre-
sentatives of other codices, very probably as early, perhaps even
earlier, than any now extant.

It is suggested that on such terms the respective claims of
the uncial and cursive, the earlier and more recent codices (and
those claims are not in reality conflicting) may be fitly and with
good reason adjusted.

19. Since we have not been sparing in our animadversions
on that species of Comparative Criticism, which, setting out from
a foregone determination to find an ancient, if not a genuine,
text only in a certain limited number of documents of every
class, shuts out from view the greater portion of the facts that
oppose the theory it maintains; it is all the more incumbent
on us to say that from another kind of Comparative Criticism,
patiently cultivated, without prejudice or exclusive notions,
we look for whatever light is yet to be shed on the history
and condition of the sacred records. No employment will
prove more profitable to the student than his private and in-
dependent research into the relation our documents stand in
with regard to each other, their affinities, their mutual agree-
ment or diversity. The publication of Cod. δὲ in full (see
Ῥ. 28) will soon open a wide field to our investigations, which
many aspirants will doubtless hasten to occupy and culti-
vate to the general profit: a single illustration of the nature
and results of the process shall now suffice. Those who would
seek the primitive text of Scripture rather in the readings of
Cod. B, the most widely removed from that commonly received,
than in Cod. A}, which (at least in the Gospels) most nearly

1 Since the description of Cod. A (pp. 79—84) was printed off, an 8° edition
of the Codex Alexandrinus in common type has appeared in-a form to match the
Leipsic reprint of Cod. B (see p. 92), but in this instance under the care of a
responsible editor, ‘“‘B. H. Cowper.” Like its predecessor, the reprint of Cod. A
is burdened with modern breathings and accents: the paragraphs of his codex are
departed from, when Mr Cowper judges them inconvenient, and its hiatus are
absurdly supplied from Kuster’s Mill (1710). These defects, however, may easily

410 ON THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT, INCLUDING

approaches it, are perpetually urging the approximation to the
character of the former of those considerable fragments which yet
survive, and date from the fifth or sixth century. Tregelles, for
instance, describing Cod. R (see p. 114), on which he bestowed
such honest, and (for his own fame) such unavailing toil, speaks
thus on a matter he might be presumed to have thoroughly
examined. ‘The text of these fragments is ancient; agreeing
generally with some of the other copies of the oldest class. The
discovery of all such fragments is of importance as affording a
confirmation of those results which criticism of the text would
previously have indicated” (Tregelles’ Horne, p. 184): a confir-
mation of his system certainly not to be disparaged or explained
away, but entitled, so far as it goes, to much attention. Yet
after all how stand the facts of the case, when Cod. R is sub-
mitted to the test of Comparative Criticism? I have analysed
the readings of all the 25 fragments (505 verses), as they stand
in the notes to Tregelles’ own Greek Testament, and I respect-
fully commend to that editor’s consideration the summary of a
result for which his language had in no wise prepared me. Out
of the 1008 various readings cited from R, expressly or by impli-
cation, that venerable palimpsest stands alone among the manu-
scripts on Tregelles’ list 46 times; with ABCD (but C is sadly
mutilated) 23 times; with ABC 51 times; with ABD 57 times;
with AB 97 times; with others against AB 131 times (52 of
them with the Received text); with B against A 204 times (55
of them with the Received text) ; but with Cod. A against Cod.
B no less than 399 times, in 366 of which it agrees with the
textus receptus’. ‘Thus the true character of this “ ancient text”

be endured if, as he assures us, the editor has revised Woide’s great work, by a
careful re-examination of the original, and this statement I found no cause to
doubt on the slight comparison between them I have yet been able to make.
The Prolegomena too are useful and painstaking, but since Mr Cowper is evidently
a novice in these studies, they are calculated to afford the learned on the continent
a low opinion of English scholarship. I cordially assent to the editor's approval
of the reverential care with which this precious book is treated by the officers of
the British Museum: so frail have some of its leaves become, and so liable is the
ink to peel or fly off in a kind of impalpable dust, that ‘however gently the
manuscript is handled, it must be deteriorated; and should therefore only be
consulted for some really practical purpose” (p. xix). For his opinion respecting
its reading in 1 Tim. iii. 16, see Chap, 1x,

1 On applying this mode of calculation to the first hundred verses of St Luke
contained in Codd, PQ (p. 113), of the sixth and fifth centuries respectively, we

RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 411

is no longer doubtful; the process by which it is arrived at, if
somewhat tedious, is rather more trustworthy than the shrewdest
conjecture; and we have one warning the more, furnished too
by no mean critic, that ἀταλαίπωρος τοῖς πολλοῖς (and not
τοῖς πολλοῖς only) ἡ ζήτησις τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ ἑτοῖμα
μᾶλλον τρέπονται. :

find that out of 216 readings recorded for P, 182 for Ὁ, P stands alone 14 times,
Q not once: P agrees with others against AB 21 times, Q 19: P agrees with AB
united 50 times, Q also 50: P is with B against A 29 times, Q 38: but (in this
respect resembling Cod. R) P accords with A against B in 102 places, Q in 75.
Codd. AZ have but 23 verses in common; but judged from them Z resembles B
much more than A.

CHAPTER VIII.

CONSIDERATIONS DERIVED FROM THE PECULIAR
CHARACTER AND GRAMMATICAL FORM OF THE
DIALECT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT.

1. ie will not be expected of us to enter in this place upon

the wide subject of the origin, genius, and peculiarities,
whether in respect to grammar or orthography, of that dialect
of the Greek in which the N.'T. was written, except so far as
it bears directly upon the criticism of the sacred volume. Ques-
tions, however, are perpetually arising, when we come to exa-
mine the oldest manuscripts of Scripture, which cannot be
resolved unless we bear in mind the leading particulars wherein
the diction of the Evangelists and Apostles differs not only from
that of pure classical models, but also of their own contempo-
raries who composed in the Greek language, or used it as their
ordinary tongue.

2. The Greek style of the N. T., then, is the result of
blending two independent elements, the debased vernacular
speech of the age, and that strange modification of the Alex-
andrian dialect which first appeared in the Septuagint version
of the Old Testament, and which, from their habitual use of that
version, had become familiar to the Jews in all nations under
heaven; and was the more readily adopted by those whose
native language was Aramaean, from its profuse employment of
Hebrew idioms and forms of expression. It is to this latter,
the Greek of the Septuagint, of the Apocalypse, and of the
foreign Jews, that the name of Hellenistic (Acts vi. 1) strictly
applies. St Paul, who was born in a pure Greek city (Juvenal,
it. 114—118) ; perhaps even St Luke, whose original writings’

1 viz. Luke i. 1—4, some portion of the Gospel and most of the Acts: ex-
cluding such cases as St Stephen’s speech, Act. vii, and the parts of his Gospel

ON THE DIALECT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 413

savour strongly of Demosthenes and Polybius, cannot be said to
have affected the Hellenic, which they must have heard and
spoken from their cradles. Without denying that the Septua-
gint translation and (by reason of their long sojourning in Pales-
tine) even Syriac phraseology would powerfully influence the
style of these inspired penmen, it is not chiefly from these
sources that their writings must be illustrated, but rather from
the kind of Greek current during their lifetime in Hellenic
cities and colonies.

3. Hence may be seen the exceeding practical difficulty of
fixing the orthography, or even the grammatical forms pre-
vailing in the Greek Testament, a difficulty arising not only
from the fluctuation of manuscript authorities, but even more
from the varying circumstances of the respective authors. To
St John, for example, Greek must have been an alien tongue ;
the very construction of his sentences and the subtle current of
his thoughts amidst all his simplicity of mere diction, render
it evident (even could we forget the style of his Apocalypse)
that he thought in Aramaean: divergencies from the common
Greek type might be looked for in him and those Apostles
whose situation resembled his, which it is very unlikely would
be adopted by Paul of Tarsus. Bearing these facts always in
mind (for the style of the New Testament is too apt to be treated
as an uniform whole), we will proceed to discuss briefly, yet as
distinctly as may be, a few out of the many perplexities of this
description to which the study of the original codices at once in-
troduces us.

4. One of the most striking of them regards what is called
ν ἐφελκυστικόν, the “v attached”, which has been held to be an
arbitrary and secondary adjunct. This letter, however, which is
“of most frequent occurrence at the end of words, is itself of
such a weak and fleeting consistency, that it often becomes in-
audible, and is omitted in writing’? (Donaldson, Greek Gram-
mar, p. 53, 2nd edit.). Hence, though, through the difficulty
of pronunciation, it became usual to neglect it before a conso-
nant, it always comprised a real portion of the word to which it
was annexed, and the great Attic poets are full of verses which

which resemble in style, and were derived from the same sources as, those of SS,
Matthew and Mark.

414 CONSIDERATIONS DERIVED FROM THE FORM

cannot be scanned in its absence?: on the other hand, the cases
are just as frequent where its insertion before a consonant would
be fatal to the metre. In these instances the laws of prosody
infallibly point out the true reading, and lead us up to a general
rule, that the weak or moveable v is more often dropped before a
consonant than otherwise. This conclusion is confirmed by the
evidence of surviving classical manuscripts, although but few of
these are older than the tenth century, and would naturally be
conformed, in such minute points, to the fashion of that period.
Codices of the Greek Testament and of the Septuagint, however,
which date from the fourth century downwards, present to us
this remarkable phenomenon, that they exhibit the final v before
a consonant full as often as they reject it, and speaking gene-
rally, the most ancient (e.g. Evan. X* ABCD) are the most
constant in retaining it, though it is met with frequently in
many cursive copies, and occasionally in almost all. Hence arises
a difficulty, on the part of modern editors, in dealing with this
troublesome letter. Lachmann professes to follow the balance
of evidence (such evidence as he received) in each separate case,
and while he usually inserted, sometimes omitted it where he
had no cause for such inconsistency except the purely accidental
variation of his manuscripts ; ‘Tischendorf admits it almost always
(Proleg. N.T. p. liii. 7th edition), Tregelles (I think) invariably.
Whether it be employed or not, the practice should at any rate
be uniform, and it is hard to assign any reason for using it
which would not apply to classical writers, whose manuscripts
would no doubt contain it as often as those of the N.'T., were
they as remote in date*®, ‘The same facts are true, and the same
remarks equally apply to the representing or withdrawing of the
weak ς in οὕτως before a consonant.

5. In the mode of spelling proper names of places and per-
sons peculiar to Judaea, the general practice of some older codices
is to represent harsher forms than those met with in later docu-

1 e.g. Aischylus, Perse, 411: κόρυμβ᾽, ἐπ᾽ ἄλλην δ᾽ ἄλλος ἴθυνεν δόρυ, or Sopho-
cles, Antigone, 219: τὸ μὴ ᾽πιχωρεῖν τοῖς ἀπιστοῦσῖν τάδε.

* So far as we can see at present, Cod. ἐξ seldom has the ν with nouns, not
always with verbs.

3 The terminations which admit this moveable ν (including -e of the pluper-
fect) are enumerated by Donaldson ((@/r, Gram. p. 53). Tischendorf however
(Proleg. N. 7. p. liv) demurs to εἴκοσιν, even before a vowel.

OF THE DIALECT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 415

ments. Thus in Mark 1. 21 καφαρναούμ is found in NBDA. 33.
69, Origen (¢wice), the Latin, Memphitic and Gothic (but not the

Syriac: $0G0.5;29) versions, and, from the facility of its
becoming softened by copyists, this may be preferred to καπερ-
ναοὺμ of AC and the great numerical majority: yet we see PL
with C in Matth. iv. 13, where Z sides with BD. In other in-
stances the practice varies, even in the same manuscript, or in
different parts of the N.T. Tischendorf, for example, decides
that we ought always to read ναζαρὲθ in St Matthew, ναζαρὲτ
in St John (Proleg. N. T. p. lv, note): yet the Peshito in all
twelve places that the name occurs, and the Curetonian in the
four wherein it is extant (Matth. 11. 23; iv. 138; xxi. 11; Luke
ii. 51) have the aspirate (23 2), and being written in a kindred
dialect, claim all the more consideration. Everywhere the ma-
nuscripts vary considerably: thus in Mark 1. 9 ναζαρὲτ is found
in NBLPA. 33, 69, and most cursives (17 of Scrivener’s), Origen,
the Philoxenian Syriac and Old Latin a.b,f: Nafapar in AP:
but ναζαρὲθ in 1) (not its Latin version, 4) EFHKMUYV. 1, and
at least 16 other cursives (but not Cod. 69 by the first hand,
as ‘T'regelles states), the Vulgate, c, the Memphitic and Gothic
‘as well as the elder Syriac. In Matth. iv. 13 Cod. B has Na-
Capa by the first hand with Z. 33 (so E in Luke iv. 16); CPA
Nafapa@, which is found in A nine times, in A twice: so that
regarding the orthography of this word (which is inconstant also
in the Received text, see p. 310) no reasonable certainty is to be
attained. For Ma@@a1os, again (the variation from the common
form Ματθαῖος adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles),
the authority is but slender, nor is the internal probability great :
‘Codd. NBA read the former in the title and headings to the first
Gospel, while in the five places where it occurs in the text B
(prima manu) D have it always, δὲ three times (but μαθθεος
Matth. x. 8, ματθαιον Mark 11. 18), the Thebaic and Gothic
each twice: the Peshito and title of the Curetonian too (all that
is extant) have wSo, For ᾿Ιωάνης the proof is yet weaker, for
here Cod. B alone, and not quite consistently (e.g. Acts ii. 4,
&e.) reads Iwavns, Cod. δὲ Ιωαννης, while Cod. D fluctuates be-
tween the two.

6. Far more important than these are such variations in
orthography as bear upon the dialect of the N.T. Its affinity to

416 CONSIDERATIONS DERIVED FROM THE FORM

the Septuagint is admitted on all hands, the degree of that
affinity must depend on the influence we grant to certain very
old manuscripts of the former, which abound in Alexandrian
forms, for the most part absent in the great mass of codices.
Such are the verbal terminations -apev, -ατε, -av in the plural of
the second aorist indicative, -ooay for -ον in the plural imperfect
or second aorist, -ovcay for -ovv, -av for -ασι of the perfect,
-atw for -étw, -ato for -ετο, -apevos for -όμενος : in nouns the
principal changes are -ay for -a in the accusative of the third
declension, and (more rarely) the converse -a for -av in the
first!. We have conceded to these forms the name of Alex-
andrian, because it is probable that they actually derived their
origin from that city, whose dialectic peculiarities the Sep-
tuagint had propagated among all Jews that spoke Greek;
although some of them, if not the greater part, have been clearly
traced to other regions; as for example -av for -acv to Western
Asia Minor also and to Cilicia (Scholz, Commentatio, p. 9, notes
w, X), occurring too in the Pseudo-Homeric Batrachomyomachia
(ἐπεὶ κακὰ πολλά μ᾽ ἔοργαν, v. 179). Now when we come
to examine our manuscripts closely, we find the forms we have
enumerated not quite banished from the most recent, but appear-
ing far more frequent in such copies as ABC (especially D) LZ
than in those of lower date: so far as it is yet known, Cod. &
seems to contain fewer than some others. It has been usual
to ascribe such anomalous (or, at all events, unclassical) in-
flexions to the circumstance that the first-rate codices were
written in Egypt; but an assumption which might be plausible
in the case of two or three is improbable as regards them all
(see pp. 84, 93, 96); it will not apply at all to those Greek-
Latin manuscripts which must have been made in the West, or
to the cursives in which such forms are sparsely met with, but
which were certainly not copied from surviving uncials*. Thus

1 These last might be supposed to have originated from the omission or inser-
tion of the faint line for y over the preceding letter, which (especially at the end
of a line) we stated in p. 43 to be found, even in the oldest manuscripts. Some-
times the anomalous form is much supported by junior as well as by ancient
codices: e.g. θυγατέραν, Luke xiii. 16 KXI*A 209, 69, and ten others of Scriv-
ener’s.

2 Tregelles presses yet another argument: ‘If Alexandrian forms had been
introduced into the N.T. by Egyptian copyists, how comes it that the classical
MSS. written in that country are free from them?!” (Account of Printed Text,

OF THE DIALECT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 417

we seem led to the conclusion that the older documents retained
these irregularities, because they were found in ¢he7r prototypes,
the copies first taken from the sacred originals: that some of
them were in all likelihood the production of the skilful scribes
of Alexandria, though their exhibiting these forms does not
prove the fact, or even render it very probable: and that the
sacred penmen, some more than others, but all to some extent,
were influenced by their recollections and habitual use of the
Septuagint version. Our practical inference from the whole dis-
cussion will be, no¢ that Alexandrian inflexions should be in-
variably or even usually received into the text, as some recent
editors have been inclined to do, but that they should be judged
separately in every case on their merits and the support adduced
in their behalf; and be held entitled to no other indulgence than
that a lower degree of evidence will suffice for them than when
the sense is affected, inasmuch as idiosyncrasies in spelling are
of all others the most liable to be gradually and progressively
modernised even by faithful and pains-taking transcribers.

7. The same remarks will obviously apply to those other
djelectic forms, which, having been once peculiar to some one
race of the great Greek family, had in the Apostles’ time spread
themselves throughout the Greek colonies of Asia and Africa,
and become incorporated into the common speech, if they did not
enter into the cultivated literary style, of the whole nation.
Such are the reputed Dorisms ὀδυνᾶσαι Luke xvi. 25, καυχᾶσαι
Rom. ii. 17, 1 Cor. iv. 7, of the Received text, with no real
variation in any known manuscript: all such examples must
stand or fall on their own proper grounds of external evidence,
the internal, so far as it ought to go, being clearly in their favour.
Like to them are the Ionisms μαχαίρῃ Luke xxii. 49 (ΒΞ DLT
only); συνειδυίης Act. v. 2 (AB*E only: cuviduns δὲ); σπείρης
ibid. xxvii. 1, of the common text, where the only authorities
for the more familiar σπείρας seem to be Chrysostom, the
cursives 36. 39, and Scrivener’s begho. To this class belong
such changes of conjugation as κατεγέλουν Mark v. 40 in

p- 178). But what classical MSS. does he know of, written while Egypt was yet
Greek or Christian, and now extant for our inspection? I can only think of Cure-
ton’s Homer and Babington’s papyri.

418 ON THE DIALECT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT.

Ke, 238. 447; or vice versd, as ἀγανακτῶντες Cod. 69, in
Mark xiv. 4.

8. One caution seems called for in this matter, at least if
we may judge from the practice of certain critics of high and
merited fame. The sacred penmen may have adopted ortho-
graphical forms from the dialect of the Septuagint, or the de-
based diction of common life, but they did not, and could not,
write what was merely inaccurate or barbarous. Hence repu-
diate, in St Paul especially, expressions like Tischendorf’s ἐφ᾽
ἐλπίδι Rom. viii. 20, as simply incredible on any evidence. He -
may allege for it Codd. NB*D*FG, of which the last three
are bilingual codices, the scribes of I°G showing marvellous
ignorance of Greek (see pp. 134, 137). That Codd. ἐξ B should
countenance such a monstrum only enables us to accumulate one
example the more of the fallibility of the very best documents
(see p. 377, and Chap. 1x, notes on 1 Cor. xiii. 3; Philipp. ii. 1;
1 Pet.i.23); and to put in all seriousness the enquiry of Kuenen
in some like instance: ‘‘Quot annorum Codex te impellet ut
hoe credas ?...... ecquis est, cui fides veterum membranarum in
tali re non admodum ridicula et inepta videatur?” (N. 7. Vatig.
Praef. p. xx). In the same way we utterly disregard the manu-
scripts which confound οὐχ with οὐκ, μέλλει with μέλει, sense
with nonsense,

The reader has, we trust, been furnished with the leading
principles on which it is conceived that dialectic peculiarities
should be treated in revising the text of the N.T. It would
have been out of place to have entered into a more detailed
account of variations which will readily be met with (and must
be carefully studied) in any good Grammar of the Greek New
Testament.

CHAPTER IX.

APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS AND
PRINCIPLES TO THE CRITICISM OF SELECT PAS-
SAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

ω applying to the revision of the sacred text the diplomatic
materials and critical principles it has been the purpose of
the preceding pages to describe; we have selected the few pas-
sages we have room to examine, chiefly in consideration of their
actual importance, occasionally also with the design of illus-
trating by pertinent examples the canons of internal evidence
and the laws of Comparative Criticism. It will be convenient to
discuss these passages in the order they occupy in the volume
of the New Testament: that which stands first affords a con-
spicuous instance of undue and misplaced sudjectivity on the part
of Tischendorf and Tregelles.

(1). Marr. i. 18. Tod δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ... is altered by
these editors into Tod δὲ Χριστοῦ, ᾿Τησοῦ being omitted. Michaelis
had objected to the term τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν, Act. vill. 87 (see
the verse examined below), on the ground that “In the time of
the Apostles the word Christ was never used as the Proper
Name of a Person, but as an epithet expressive of the ministry
of Jesus; and although Bp. Middleton has abundantly proved
his statement incorrect (Doctrine of the Greek Article, note on
Mark ix. 41), and Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, especially in some one of
the oblique cases after prepositions, is very common, yet the
precise form ὁ Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς occurs only in these places and in
1 John iv. ὃ; Apoc. xii. 17, where again the reading is un-
settled. Hence, apparently, the determination to change the
common text in St Matthew, on evidence however slight. Now

27—2

420 APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS

Ἰησοῦ is omitted in no Greek manuscript whatever’. The Latin
version of Cod. D (d) indeed rejects it, the parallel Greek being
lost; but since d sometimes agrees with other Latin copies
against its own Greek, it cannot be deemed quite certain that
the Greek rejected it also. Cod. B reads τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ,
in support of which Lachmann cites Origen, 111. 965d in the
Latin, but on very precarious grounds, as Tregelles (Account of
Printed Text, p. 189, note Τ) candidly admits. Tischendorf quotes
Cod. 74 (after Wetstein), the Persic (of the Polyglott and in
manuscript), and Maximus Dial. de Trinitate for τοῦ δὲ ἰησοῦ.
The real testimony in favour of τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ consists of
the Old Latin copies a.b.c. d.f. ff", the Curetonian Syriae (I
know not why Cureton should add “the Peshito’’), the Latin
Vulgate, the Frankish and Anglo-Saxon, Wheelocke’s Persie,
and Irenaeus in three places, “who (after having previously
cited the words ‘ Christi autem generatio sic erat’) continues
‘Ceterum potuerat dicere Matthaeus, Jesu vero generatio ste
erat; sed praevidens Spiritus Sanctus depravatores, et prae-
muniens contra fraudulentiam eorum, per Matthaeum ait: Christt
autem generatio sic erat’ (Ὁ. H. Lib. 111. 16. 2). This is given
in proof that Jesus and Christ are one and the same person, and
that Jesus cannot be said to be the receptacle that afterwards
received Christ; for the Christ was born” (Account of Printed
Text, p. 188). To this most meagre list of authorities Scholz
adds, ‘‘ Pseudo-Theophil. in Evang.,” manuscripts of Theophy-
lact, Augustine, and one or two of little account: but even in
Trenaeus (Harvey, Vol. 11. p. 48) τοῦ δὲ εὖ yu (tacit2) stands over
against the Latin ‘“ Christi.” ,

We do not deny the importance of Irenaeus’ express testi-
mony, had it been supported by something more trustworthy
than the Old Latin versions and their constant associate, the
Curetonian Syriac. On the other hand, all uncial and cursive
codices (NCEKLMPSUVZA: ADFG ἄς. being defective here),
the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Thebaic, Memphitie,
Armenian, and Athiopie versions, Origen (in the Greek) and
Eusebius, comprise a body of proof, not to be shaken by sub-
jective notions or even by Western evidence from the second
century downwards,

* IT know not why Tischendorf cites Cod. 71 (g*") for the omission of ᾿Ιησοῦ,
Neither Traheron nor I note that variation,

TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 421

(2). ΜΑΤΤΗ. vi. 18 : ὅτι σου ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις
καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. ἀμήν (see Ὁ. 8). It is right to say that
I can no longer regard this doxology as certainly an integral part
of St Matthew’s Gospel: but I am just as little convinced of its
spuriousness. It is wanting in the oldest uncials extant, NBDZ,
and since ACP (whose general character would lead us to look
for support to the Received text in such a case) are unfortunately
deficient here, the burden of the defence is thrown on the later
uncials EGKLMSUVA, whereof L is conspicuous for usually
siding with B. Of the cursives only five are known to omit the
clause, 1.17 (habet ἀμήν). 118. 180. 209, but h*™ (and as it
it would seem some others) has it obelized in the margin, while
the scholia in certain other copies indicate that it is doubtful:
even 33 contains it, 69 being defective: 157. 225 add to δόξα,
τοῦ πατρὸς Kal τοῦ υἱοῦ Kal τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. Versions have
much influence on such a question, it is therefore important to
notice that it is found in all the four Syriac (Cureton’s omitting
καὶ ἡ δύναμις, and some editions of the Peshito ἀμήν, which is in
at least one manuscript), the Thebaic (omitting καὶ ἡ δόξα), the
ZEthiopic, Armenian, Gothic, Slavonic, Georgian, Erpenius’
Arabic, the Persic of the Polyglott from Pococke’s manuscript,
the margin of some Memphitic codices, the Old Latin & (quo-
niam est tibi virtus in saecula saeculorum) αὶ g1 (Ὁ). The doxo-
logy is not found in most Memphitic and Arabic manuscripts
or editions, in Wheelocke’s Persic, in the Old Latin a. Ὁ. ec.
ff. 4. 1, τὰ the Vulgate or its satellites the Anglo-Saxon and
Frankish (the Clementine Vulg. and Sax. add amen). Its ab-
sence from the Latin avowedly caused the editors of the Com-
plutensian N.'T’. to pass it over (see p. 849 note), though it was
found in their Greek copies: the earliest Latin Fathers natu-
rally did not cite what the Latin codices for the most part do
not contain. Among the Greeks. it is met with in Isidore of
Pelusium (412), and in the Pseudo-Apostolic Constitutions,
probably of the fourth century: soon afterwards Chrysostom
(Hom. in Matth. xix. Vol. 1. p. 283, Field) comments upon it
without showing the least consciousness that its authenticity
was disputed. The silence of earlier writers, as Origen and
Cyril of Jerusalem, especially when expounding the Lord’s
Prayer, may be partly accounted for on the supposition that
the doxology was regarded not so much a portion of the prayer

422 APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS

itself, as a hymn of praise annexed to it; yet this fact is so
far unfavourable to its genuineness, and would be fatal unless
we knew the precariousness of any argument derived from such
silence. The Fathers are constantly overlooking the most obvi-
ous citations from Scripture, even where we should expect them
most, although, as we learn from other passages in their writings,
they were perfectly familiar with them. Internal evidence is
not unevenly balanced. It is probable that the doxology was
interpolated from the Liturgies, and the variation of reading
renders this all the more likely ; it is just as probable that it was
cast out of St Matthew’s Gospel to bring it into harmony with
St Luke’s (xi. 4): I cannot concede to Scholz and Alford that it
is “in interruption of the context,” for then the whole of ν. 13
would have to be cancelled (a remedy which no one proposes),
and not merely this concluding part of it.

It is vain to dissemble the pressure of the adverse case,
though it ought not to be looked upon as conclusive. The
Syriac and Thebaic versions bring up the existence of the doxo-
logy to the second century; Isidore, Chrysostom and perhaps
others! attest for it in the fourth; then come the Latin codices
f. k, the Gothic, the Armenian, the Avthiopic, and lastly the
whole flood-tide of Greek manuscripts from the eighth century
downwards, including even L. 33. Perhaps it is not very wise
“quaerere quae habere non possumus,”’ yet those who are per-
suaded, from the well-ascertained affinities subsisting between
them, that ACP, or at least two out of the three, would have
preserved a reading sanctioned by the Peshito, .by Cod. f, by
Chrysostom, and nearly all the later documents, may be ex-
cused for regarding the indictment against the last clause of the
Lord’s Prayer as hitherto unproven.

(3). Marra. xix. 17 (see p. 16). For Τί με λέγεις ὠγαθόν ;
οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἷς, ὁ Θεός, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tis-

1 Why should Gregory Nyssen (371) be classed among the opponents of the
clause, whereas Griesbach honestly states, ‘suam expositionem his quidem verbis
concludit : χάριτι χριστοῦ, ὅτι αὐτοῦ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα ἅμα τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ
πνεύματι, νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς aldvas τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν" He adds indeed, “sed
pro parte sacri textfis neutiquam haec habuisse videtur;” and justly: they were
rather a loose paraphrase of the sentence before him. Euthymius Zigabenus, who

᾽

calls the doxology τὸ παρὰ τῶν θείων φωστήρων καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας καθηγητῶν προσ-
τεθὲν ἀκροτελεύτιον ἐπιφώνημα, lived in the twelfth century, and must be estimated
accordingly,

TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 428

chendorf, Tregelles and Alford read Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγα-
θοῦ; εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ ἀγαθός. The self-same words as in the Re-
ceived text occur in the parallel places Mark x. 18, Luke xviii.
19 with no variation worth speaking of; a fact which (so far
as it goes) certainly lends support to the supposition that St
Matthew’s autograph contained the other reading : see Ὁ. 11 (9).
Add to this that any change made from St Matthew, supposing
the common reading to be true, must have been wilfully intro-
duced by one who was offended at the doctrine of the Divine
Son’s inferiority to the Father which it seemed to assert or
imply. Internal evidence, therefore, would be in favour of the
alteration approved by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and the rest;
and in discussing external authority, their opponents are much
hampered by the accident that not more than three first-class
uncials can be cited in this place, A being defective and δὲ as
yet unknown, though one is disposed to think, partly from tts
general character, partly from Tischendorf’s silence in the No-
titia Cod. Sinaitict, that it does not uphold his view of the
question. Under these circumstances we might have been ex-
cused from noticing this passage until the evidence of & shall be
ascertained, but that it seemed dishonest to suppress a case on
which Tregelles (Account of Printed Text, pp. 133—8) has laid
great stress, and which, when the drift of the internal evidence
is duly allowed for, tells more in his favour than any other
he has yet alleged, or is likely to meet with elsewhere.

The alternative reading Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ayabod κ.τ.λ.
occurs in BD (omitting τοῦ and ὁ) L. 1 (omitting ὁ). 22. In 251
both readings are given, the received one first, in v. 17, the other
interpolated after ποίας v. 18, prefaced by 6 δὲ ἰησοῦς εἶπεν
αὐτῷ. HKxcepting these six all other extant codices reject it,
CEFGHKMSUVA (omitting λέγεις), even 33. 69. The ver-
sions are more seriously divided. ‘The Peshito Syriac, the Phi-
loxenian text, the Thebaic (Oxford fragments), the Old Latin καὶ
the Arabic, &c. make for the common reading; Cureton’s and
the Jerusalem Syriac, the Old Latin a. b. 6. δὲ fF". 1, the
Vulgate (the Anglo-Saxon and Frankish, of course), Memphitic
and Armenian for that of Lachmann, &e. Several present a
mixed form: ti με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ
μὴ els: viz. the margin of the Philoxenian, the υπίορῖο, and
gh. m of the Old Latin. A few (Cureton’s Syriac, b. ὁ. 413. 9’.

434 APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS

‘+h. l. m, and the Vulgate) add ὁ θεός, as in the common text;
but this is unimportant.

Tregelles presses us hard with the testimony of Origen in
favour of the reading he adopts: ὁ μὲν οὖν Ματθαῖος, ὡς περὶ
ἀγαθοῦ ἔργου ἐρωτηθέντος τοῦ σωτῆρος ἐν τῷ, Τί ἀγαθὸν ποιή-
σω; ἀνέγραψεν. Ὃ δὲ Μάρκος καὶ Λουκᾶς φασι τὸν σωτῆρα
εἰρηκέναι, Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν ; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἷς, ὁ Θεός
(Tom. 111. p. 6604 4). “The reading which is opposed to the com-
mon text,” he writes, ‘‘has the express testimony of Origen in
its favour” (p. 134); ‘might I not well ask for some proof that
the other reading existed, in the time of Origen, in copies of St
Matthew's Gospel?” (p. 137). I may say in answer, that the
testimony of Origen applies indeed to the former part of the
variation which Tregelles maintains (τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ aya-
θοῦ), but not at all to the latter (εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός), and that the
Peshito Syriac version of the second, as also the Thebaic of the
third century, uphold the common text, without any variation in
the manuscripts of the former, that we know of!. Or if he asks
for the evidence of Fathers to counterbalance that of a Father,
we have Justin Martyr: προσελθόντος αὐτῷ τινος καὶ εἰπόντος
(words which shew, as Tischendorf observes, that St Matthew’s
is the only Gospel that can be referred to) Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ,
ἀπεκρίνατο λέγων, Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ποιή-
σας τὰ πάντα, citing loosely, as usual, but not ambiguously.
Or if half the variation will satisfy, as it did for Origen, Tregelles’
own note refers us to Irenaeus 92 for τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν ; εἷς ἐστὶν
ἀγαθός, and to Eusebius for the other half in the form quoted
above from the A‘thiopic, &c. Moreover, since he cites the last
five words of the subjoined extract as belonging to St Matthew,
Tregelles entitles us to employ for our purpose the whole pas-
sage Marcosiorum ap. Iren. 92, which we might not otherwise
have ventured to do: καὶ τῷ εἰπόντι αὐτῷ Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, τὸν
ἀληθῶς ἀγαθὸν θεὸν ὡμολογηκέναι, εἰπόντα Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν;
εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. Jerome and Augus-
tine (for the first clause only: de Consensu Evan. 1. 63) are with

1 “Ves,” says Tregelles, ‘the Peshito Syriac, as it has come down to us” (p. 136).
We might as well disparage the opposing testimony of Origen by rejoining, ‘‘ Origen,
in all extant manuscripts and editions.” I know no other cause for suspecting the
Peshito than that its readings do not suit Dr Tregelles, and if this fact be enough
to convict it of corruption, I am quite unable to vindicate it.

TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 425

the Latin Vulgate, Hilary with the common Greek text, as are
also Optatus (Η. 5710), Ambrose, Chrysostom, and the main body
of later Fathers. Thus the great mass of manuscripts, headed
by C, is well supported by versions, and even better by eccle-
siastical writers; yet, in virtue of the weight of internal evi-
dence, we would not hold out against the reading of BDL, &c.,
if Cod. & shall be found to agree with them.

(4). Marry. xx. 28. The extensive interpolation which
follows this verse in some very ancient documents has been given
above, p. 8, in the form represented in the Curetonian Syriac
version. It bears the internal marks of evident spuriousness, the
first sentence consisting of a rhetorical antithesis as unsuitable
as can be imagined to the majestic simplicity of our Lord’s usual
tone, while the sentiment of the rest is manifestly borrowed
from Luke xiv. 8—10, although there is little or no resemblance
in the words. The only extant Greek for the passage is in
Cod. D: υμεῖς δὲ ζητειτε ex μείκρου αὐξησαι καὶ εκ μειζονος
ἔλαττον εἰναι" εἰσερχόμενοι δὲ καὶ παρακληθεντες δευπνησαι μὴ
ανακλεινεσθαι εἰς Tous εἕεχοντας τοποὺυς μὴ ποτε ενδοξοτερος σου
eTeNOn Kat προσέλθων ο δευπνοκλητωρ εἰπὴ TOL ETL κάτω χωρεῖ
και καταισχυνθηση" εαν δὲ αναπεσὴς εἰς TOY ἡττονᾶ τόπον Kat
ἐπέλθη σου ἡττων ερεὶ ToL ο δευιπνοκλητωρ συναγε ETL AV" καὶ
εσται σοι TovTo χρησιμον. The codices of the Old Latin version
(α. ὃ. ο. 6. 9. hin. and em. of the Vulgate) mostly support
the same addition, though with many variations: d, as usual,
agrees with none (see p. 266); g° has not the first sentence,
while g!.m have nothing else. Besides the Curetonian Syriac
the margin of the Philoxenian contains it, in a shape much
like d, noting that the paragraph is “found in Greek copies
in this place, but in ancient copies only in St Luke, «eg. 53”
[ch. xiv. 8, ἄς]: Cureton has also seen it in one manuscript
of the Peshito (Brit. Mus. 14,456), but there too in the margin.
Marshall states that it is contained in four codices of the Anglo-
Saxon version (see p. 280), which proves its wide reception in
the West. Of the Fathers, Hilary recognises it, as apparently
do Juvencus and Pope Leo the Great (440—461). It was re-
jected by Jerome, being entirely absent from all Vulgate codices
but and. em., nor is it in the Old Latin fl. No other
Greek codex, or version, or ecclesiastical writer has any know- .

420 APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS

ledge of the passage: while the whole wording of the Greek
of Cod. D, especially such words as δειπνοκλήτωρ, ἐξέχὸον-
Tas, ἥττων, χρήσιμος is so foreign to the style of St Mat-
thew’s Gospel, that it seems rather to have been rendered
from the Latin?, although in the midst of so much variation it
is hard to say from what copy. Cureton too testifies that the
Syriac of the version named from him must have been made
quite independently of that in the margins of the Philoxenian
and Peshito.

No one that I know of has ventured to regard this para-
graph as genuine, however perplexing it may be to decide
at what period or even in what language it originated. The
wide divergencies between the witnesses must always dismiss
it from serious consideration. Its chief critical use must be
to shew that the united testimony of the Old Latin, of the
Curetonian Syriac, and Cod. D are quite insufficient in them-
selves to prove any more than that the reading they exhibit is
ancient: as ancient probably as the second century.

(5). Marru. xxi. 28—31. This passage, so transparently
clear in the common text, stands thus in the edition of Tregelles :
(53) Τί δὲ ὑμῖν δοκεῖ; ἄνθρωπος εἶχεν τέκνα δύο, καὶ προσελθὼν
τῷ πρώτῳ εἶπεν, Τέκνον, ὕπαγε σήμερον ἐργάζου ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι.
(9) ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, Οὐ θέλω' ὕστερον δὲ μεταμεληθεὶς
ἀπῆλθεν. (30) προσελθὼν δὲ τῷ δευτέρῳ εἶπεν ὡσαύτως. ὁ δὲ
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, ᾿Εγώ, κύριε" καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν. (91) τίς ἐκ τῶν
δύο ἐποίησεν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός; λέγουσιν, ὁ ὕστερος. ‘This
is indeed a brilliant exemplification of Bengel’s Canon (above,
Ρ. 871) “ Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua.”’ Lachmann in 1842
had given the same reading, with a few slight and unimportant
exceptions. The question is proposed which of the two sons did
their father’s will; the reply is ὁ ὕστερος, the one that promised
and then failed! Lachmann in 1850 (N. 7. Vol. τι. Praef. p. δ)

1 No passage more favours Bp. Middleton's deliberate conclusion respecting
the history of the Codex Bezae: ‘I believe that no fraud was intended: but only
that the critical possessor of the basis filled its margin with glosses and readings
chiefly from the Latin, being a Christian of the Western Church; and that the
whole collection of Latin passages was translated into Greek, and substituted in
the text by some one who had a high opinion of their value, and who was, as
Wetstein describes him, ‘‘xa\\vypadlas quam vel Graecae vel Latinae linguae
peritior.” (Doctrine of the Greek Article, Appendiz I. p. 485, 3rd edition.)

TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 427

remarks that had he been sure that πρῶτος (vy. 81) was the reading
of Cod. C, he should have honoured it, the only word that makes
sense, with a place in his margin: “ Nihilo minus,” he naively
adds, “14 quod nunc solum edidi...o ὕστερος veri similius est
altero, quod facile aliquis correctori adscribat, illud non item;”’
and we must fairly confess that no copyist would have sought to
introduce a plain absurdity into so beautiful and simple a para-
ble. “Quid vero,” he goes on to plead, “si id quod veri simi-
lius esse dixi ne intellegi quidem potest?” (a pertinent question
certainly) ‘‘ CORRIGETUR, SI MODO NECESSE ERIT:”’ critical con-
jecture, as usual, is his panacea (see p. 343). Conjecture, how-
ever, 1s justly held inadmissible by Tregelles, whose mode of
interpretation is a curiosity in its way. ‘I believe,” he says,
“that ὁ ὕστερος refers not to the order in which the two sons
have been mentioned, but to the previous expression about the
elder son, ὕστερον δὲ μεταμεληθεὶς ὠπῆλθεν, “afterwards he
repented and went.’”’ “ Which of the two did his father’s will?”
ὁ ὕστερος. He who afterwards {repented and went]. This an-
swers the charge that the reading of Lachmann is void of sense”
(Account of Printed Text, p. 107). I entertain deep respect for
the character and services of Dr Tregelles, but it is only right to
assert at once that what stands in his text is impossible Greek.
Even granting that instead of the plain answer “ the first,” our
Lord’s adversaries resorted to the harsh and equivocal reply “he
who afterwards,” they would not have said 6 ὕστερος, but ὁ
ὕστερον, or (the better to point out their reference to ὕστερον
in v. 29) ὁ τὸ ὕστερον.

Why then prefer nonsense, for the mere purpose of carrying
out Bengel’s canon to the extremity? The passage, precisely as
it stands in Tregelles’ N. 'T., ὦ sanctioned by no critical autho-
rity whatsoever. Cod. B indeed has ὕστερος, Cod. 4 δεύτερος,
Codd. 13. 69. 124. 258. 262. 346 and perhaps others ἔσχατος,
one or other of which is in the Jerusalem Syriac and Mem-
phitic, Authiopic (two manuscripts) and Armenian versions; but
all these authorities transpose the order of the two sons in
vv. 29, 30, so that the result is just the same as in the Received
text. The suggestion that the clauses were transferred in order
to reconcile ὕστερος or ἔσχατος with the context may be met by
the counter-statement that ὕστερος was just as likely to be
substituted for πρῶτος to suit the inversion of the clauses.

428 APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS

Against such inversion (which we do not pretend to recom-
mend) Origen is an early witness, so that Cod. B and its
allies are no doubt wrong: yet as that Father does not notice
any difficulty in v. 31, the necessary inference must be that he
read πρῶτος. Hippolytus testifies to ἔσχατος in v. 31, but
his evidence cannot be used as he gives no indication in what
order he took the clauses in vv. 29, 30. The indefensible
part of Tregelles’ arrangement is that, allowing the answers of
the two sons to stand as in our common Bibles, he receives
ὕστερος for πρῶτος on evidence that really tells against him.
The only true supporters of his general view are Cod. D αἴσχατος
(i.e. ἔσχατος), the Old Latin copies a. ὃ. 6. ff". σ᾽. h.l., and the
best codices of the Vulgate (am. fuld. for. tol. harl.*) though not
the Clementine edition. Hilary perplexes himself by trying to
explain the same reading; and Jerome, although he says “ Sci-
endum est in veris exemplaribus non haberi novissimum sed
primum,” has an expedient to account for the former’, which (if
am. fuld. &c. may be trusted) he did not venture to reject when
revising the Old Latin (see p. 261). On no true principles can
Cod. D and its Latin allies avail against such a mass of op-
posing proof, to which Cod. δὲ (πρῶτος) may now be added:
even the Curetonian Syriac, which so often favours Cod. D and
the Old Latin, is with the textus receptus here.

(6). Marri. xxvii. 35. After βάλλοντες κλῆρον the Re-
ceived text, but not the Complutensian edition, has ἵνα πληρωθῇ
τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ προφήτου, Διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς
καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον. Internal evidence
may be about equal for the omission of the clause by ὁμοιοτέ-
λευτον of κλῆρον, and for its interpolation from John xix. 24,
“with just the phrase τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ (or ἀπὸ) τοῦ προφήτου as-
similated to Matthew’s usual form of citation’ (Alford, ad loc.).
External evidence, however, places the spuriousness of the addi-
tion beyond doubt. It is first heard of in citations of Eusebius
and Athanasius, and is read in the Old Latin codices a. b.¢. φῇ, h.,

1 Jerome conceives that the Jews “intelligere quidem veritatem, sed tergiver-
sari, et nolle dicere quod sentiunt;” but of this wilful stubbornness we find no
traces in our Lord’s rejoinder ᾿Αμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ol τελῶναι κιτιλ, Hilary’s idea
is even more far-fetched: viz. that though the second son disobeyed, it was
because he could not execute the command. ‘Non ait noluisse sed non abisse.
Res extra culpam infidelitatis est, quia in facti erat difficultate ne fieret.”

TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 429

the Clementine (not the Sixtine) Vulgate and even am. lua. (but
not fuld. for. tol*. ing. em., nor in f. f'** g’.1), the Armenian
(whose resemblance to the Vulgate is so suspicious), the Frank-
ish and Anglo-Saxon, and as a matter of course in the Roman
edition of the Arabic (see p. 282), and the Persic of the Polyglott
(see p. 281). The clause seems to be found in no manuscript of
the Peshito Syriac, and is consequently absent from Widman-
stadt’s edition and the Antwerp, Paris and London Polyglotts
(see pp. 232—4). ‘Tremellius first turned the Greek words into
Syriac and placed them in the margin of his book, whence they
were most unwisely admitted into the text of several later edi-
tions (but not Lee’s), without the slightest authority. They
also appear in the text of the Philoxenian, but the marginal note
(see p. 242) states that ‘this passage from the prophet is not in
two [‘‘ three”? Codd. Asseman?] Greek copies, nor in the ancient
Syriac.” All other versions and Fathers, and all Greek manu-
scripts (including δῷ, if we may judge by Tischendorf’s silence)
reject the clause, except A. 1. 17 (see p. 144). 61. 69. 118. 124.
262. 300. Evst. 55: Scholz adds “alis multis” which (judging
from my own experience) I must take leave to doubt(see p. 67).
Besides other slight changes (αὐτοῖς A, κλήρους 69 secundd manu)
Codd. A. 61. 69. and Eusebius read διὰ for ὑπό. The present
case is one out of many that show an intimate connexion (see
p- 149) subsisting between 61 and 69.

(7). Mark xvi. 9—20. In Chapter 1. we engaged to de-
fend the authenticity of this long and important paragraph, and
that “without the slightest misgiving” (p. 7). The authority
of Cod. & has since been thrown into the opposite scale, yet we
see no cause for altering our judgment, though it may be proper
to speak with less confidence. The twelve concluding verses
of this Gospel are still found in every Greek manuscript except
the two oldest. Cod. B, however, betrays consciousness on the
scribe’s part that something is left out, imasmuch as after ἐφο-
βοῦντο yap v. 8, a whole column is left perfectly blank (the only
blank one in the whole volume), as well as the rest of the
column containing v. 8, which is usual at the end of every book
of Scripture (see p. 87). It will be interesting to see whether the
same peculiarity attaches to Cod. δὲ, The testimony of L, that
close companion of B, is very suggestive. Immediately after v. 8

480 APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS

the copyist breaks off, then in the same hand (for all corrections
in this manuscript seem priimd manu: see Ὁ. 109), at the top of
the next column we read...depere που καὶ TavTa...mavta δὲ Ta
παρηγγέλμενα τοῖς περι TOV πέτρον συντομωσ εξηγγίλαν μετα δὲ
ταυτα και AVTOS O Lo, απὸ ανατολὴσ καὶ aypl δυσεωσ εξαπεστι-
λεν δὲ αυὐτων το Lepov Kat αφθαρτον κηρυγμα---τὴησ αἰωνίου σωτη-
ριασ...... εἐστην δὲ καὶ ταυτα φερομενα μετὰ το εφοβουντο yap...
Αναστασ δὲ πρωι κ.τ.λ., V. 9, ad fin. capit. (Tischendorf, fae-
simile in Monum. sacr. ined.) +: as if vv. 9—12 were just as little
to be regarded as the trifling apocryphal supplement which pre-
cedes them. Beside these the twelve verses are omitted in none
but some old Armenian codices, & of the Latin, and an Arabic
Lectionary [1x] No. 13, examined by Scholz in the Vatican.
The Old Latin codex & puts in their room a corrupt and care-
less version of the subscription in L ending with σωτηρίας (ἢ:
adding amen): the same subscription being appended to the end
of the Gospel in two A‘thiopic manuscripts, and (with ἀμήν)
in the margin of 274 and the Philoxenian. Of cursive Greek
manuscripts 137. 138 and possibly more have the passage noted
by an asterisk; others contain marginal scholia respecting it, of
which the following is the substance. Codd. 20. 300 mark the
omission in some copies, adding ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις πάντα ἀπαρά-
λείπτα κεῖται: 22 concludes at ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, then adds in red
ink that in some copies the Evangelist ends here, ἐν πολλοῖς δὲ
καὶ ταῦτα φέρεται, affixing vy. J—12: in Codd. 1. 206. 209 is the
same notice, ἄλλοις standing for πολλοῖς in 206, with the addi-
tional assertion that Kusebius “canonised”’ no further than y. 8,
a statement which is confirmed by the absence of the Ammonian
and Eusebian numerals beyond that verse in ALUIA and at
least eleven cursives, with am. fuld. ing. of the Vulgate. Codd.
23. 34. 39. 41 cite a note of Severus of Antioch [v1] importing
that the most accurate copies end with v. 8, while some go on
ἀναστὰς δὲ κ. τ. λ., “but this seems to contain some contradiction
(ἐναντίωσιν twa) with what precedes.” Cod. 24 (and 374 to
much the same effect) gives weighty testimony in favour of the
passage: παρὰ πλείστοις ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖνται ἐν TO παρόντι
εὐαγγελίῳ, ὡς νόθα νομίσαντες αὐτὰ εἶναι: ἀλλ᾽ ἡμεῖς ἐξ ἀκριβῶν
ἀντιγράφων ἐν πλείστοις εὑρόντες αὐτὰ καὶ κατὰ τὸ παλαιστι-
ναῖον εὐωγγέλιον ὡς ἔχει ἡ ἀλήθεια Μάρκου (sic) συντεθείκαμεν
καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ ἐπιφερομένην δεσποτικὴν ἀνάστασιν. There can

TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 431

be little question that the writer of 24 [x1] copied his scholion
from the older manuscript which lay before him, and that the
elder scribe had ascertained the authenticity of the disputed
verses by consulting the famous Palestine codices which had
belonged to Origen and Pamphilus (see pp. 47, 388), or possibly
the Jerusalem copies mentioned in Codd. Evan. A. 104. 262,
&e. (see pp. 125 note, 168). Scholia similar to one or other of
the preceding occur in 86—38. 40. 108. 129. 143. 181. 186. 195.
199. 210. 221. 222. All other codices, e.g. ACD (which is
defective from v. 15, primé manu) EF"GH (begins v. 14)
KMSUVXTIA. 33. 69, the Peshito, Jerusalem and Curetonian
Syriac (which by a singular happiness contains vv. 17—20,
though no other part of St Mark), the Philoxenian text, the
Sahidic (only v. 20 is preserved), Memphitic, Authiopic, Gothic
(to.v. 12), Vulgate, all extant Old Latin except k& (though a
prima manu and b are defective), the printed Armenian, its later
manuscripts, and all the lesser versions (Arabic, &c.) agree in
maintaining the paragraph. It is cited by Irenaeus (both in
Greek and Latin) and perhaps by Justin Martyr as early as the
second century, by Hippolytus (see 'Tregelles, Account of Printed
Text, p. 252), and apparently by Celsus in the third, by Cyril
of Jerusalem, Ambrose, Augustine, &c. in the fourth.

The earliest objector to vv. J—12 we know of was Eusebius
(Quaest. ad Marin.), who tells us that they were not ἐν ἅπασι
τοῖς ἀντυγράφοις, but after ἐφοβοῦντο yap that τὰ ἑξῆς are found
σπανίως ἔν τισιν, but not in τὰ ἀκριβῆ : language which Jerome
(see p. 390) twice echoes and almost exaggerates by saying “in
raris fertur Evangeliis, omnibus Graeciae libris paene hoc capi-
tulum fine non habentibus.”’ A second cause with Eusebius for
rejecting them (the same as Severus pleaded above) is μάλιστα
εἴπερ ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ.
Gregory Nyssen (Ὁ) and Victor of Antioch deem the verses spu-
rious; Euthymius mentions an opinion that they were an addi-
tion, προσθήκην.

With regard to the argument against these twelve verses
arising from their alleged difference in style from the rest of
the Gospel, I must say that the same process might be ap-
plied—and has been applied—to prove that St Paul was not the
writer of the Pastoral Hpistles (to say nothing of that to the
Hebrews), St John of the Apocalypse, Isaiah and Zechariah of

432 APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS

portions of those prophecies that bear their names. Every one
used to literary composition may detect, if he will, such minute
variations as have been dwelt upon’, either in his own writings
or in those of the authors he is most familiar with.

Persons who, like Eusebius, devoted themselves to the pious
task of constructing harmonies of the Gospels, would soon per-
ceive the difficulty of accommodating the events recorded in vv. 9
—20 with the narratives of the other Evangelists. Alford regards
this inconsistency (more apparent than real, we believe) as “a
valuable testimony to the antiquity of the fragment” (NV. 7. ad
loc.): we would go further, and claim for the harder reading the
benefit of any critical doubt as to its genuineness (Canon 1.
p- 371). The difficulty was both felt and avowed by Eusebius
and after him by Severus of Antioch: whatever Jerome and the
rest may have done, these two assigned the ἀντιλογία, the
ἐναντίωσις they thought they perceived, as a reason (not the
first, nor perhaps the chief, but as a reason) for supposing that
the Gospel ended with ἐφοβοῦντο yap. Yet in the balance of
probabilities, can anything be more unlikely than that St Mark
broke off so abruptly as this notion would imply, while no an-
cient writer has noticed or seemed conscious of any such abrupt-
ness? This fact has driven those who reject the concluding
verses to the strangest fancies ;—that like Thucydides the Evan-
gelist was cut off before his work was completed, or even (I
tremble while copying the words, and I would not draw them
forth from the obscurity of an unknown book) “that the last leaf
of the original Gospel was torn away.”

We emphatically deny that such wild surmises are called
for by the state of the evidence in this case. All opposition to
the authenticity of the paragraph resolves itself into the allega-
tions of Eusebius and the testimony of NB. Let us accord to
these the weight which is their due: but against their verdict
we can appeal to the reading of Irenaeus and of both the elder
Syriac translations in the second century; of nearly all other
versions; and of all extant manuscripts excepting two.

1 The following peculiarities have been noticed in these verses: ἐκεῖνος used
absolutely, vv. 10, 11, 13; πορεύομαι vv. 10, 12, 15; τοῖς per’ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις
v. 10; θεάομαι vv. 11, 143 ἀπιστέω vv, 11, 16; μετὰ ταῦτα v. 11: ἕτερος v. 12;
παρακολουθέω v. 17; ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι v. 17; κύριος for the Saviour, vv. 19, 20; παν-
ταχοῦ, συνεργοῦντος, βεβαιόω, ἐπακολουθέω υ. 20, all of them as not found elsewhere
in St Mark.

TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 433

(8). {ῦκε νἱ. 1. ᾿Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ.
Here again Codd. δὲ Β coincide in a reading which cannot be ap-
proved, omitting δευτεροπρώτῳ by way of getting rid of a diffi-
culty, as do both in Mark xvi. 9—20 and & in Matth. xxiii. 35.
The very obscurity of the expression, which does not occur in the
parallel Gospels or elsewhere, attests strongly to its authenticity,
if there be any truth at all in canons of internal evidence (see
above, p.371)'. Besides 8B, δευτεροπρώτῳ is absent from L. 1.
22. 33. 69 (where it is inserted in the margin by W. Chark, and
should not be noticed, see p. 151). 118. 157. 209. A few (RT
13. 117. 124 prima manu. 235) prefer δευτέρω πῤώτω, which
differs from the common reading only by a familiar itacism
(p. 10). As this verse commences a Church lesson (that for the
7th day or Sabbath of the 3rd week of the new year, see p. 71),
Evangelistaria leave out, as usual, the notes of time; in Scrivener’s
HPxyz (and no doubt in other such books) the section thus
begins, ’Ezropeveto ὁ Inaovs τοῖς σάββασιν : this however is not
properly speaking a various reading at all (see p. 211). Nor
ought we to wonder if versions pass over altogether what their
translators could not understand’; so that we may easily account
for the silence of the Peshito Syriac, Memphitic and A‘thiopie,
of the Old Latin ὃ. 6. 1. ᾳ and f secundé manu, and (if they were
worth notice) of both Persic and the Polyglott Arabic, though
both the Roman and Erpenius’ Arabic have δευτέρῳ, and so too
the Axthiopic according to Scholz; 6 “sabbato mane,” f “ sab-
bato a primo:” the Philoxenian Syriac, which renders the
word, notes in the margin its absence from some copies (see
p- 244). Against this list of authorities, few in number, and
doubtful as many of them are, we have to place the Old Latin
a. f. f- g'”, all copies of the Vulgate, its ally the Armenian, the
Gothic and Philoxenian Syriac translations, the uncial codices
ACDEHKMRSUVXATAA, all cursives except the seven cited
above, and the Fathers or Scholiasts who have tried, with what-

1 “Tf the word be a reality and originally in the text, its meaning, since in that
case it must have been borrowed from something in the Jewish calendar, would
have been traditionally known from the first.” (Green, Course of Developed Criti-
cism, p. 56.) But why would it?

2 Just as Bentley (in Mr Ellis’ Bentleit Critica Sacra, p. 35) speaking of the
latter part of 1 Cor. vii. 35, says, “‘In Lat. Codd. 0B TRANSLATIONIS DIFFI-
CULTATEM hoc penitus non invenitur.”

484 APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS

ever success, to explain the term: viz. Caesarius, Epiphanius,
Chrysostom, Isidore, Ambrose (all very expressly, as may be
seen in Tischendorf’s note), Clement of Alexandria probably, and
later writers. Lachmann and Alford place δευτεροπτρώτῳ within
brackets, Tregelles rejects it, as does Tischendorf in his earlier
editions, but restores it in his last. On reviewing the whole
evidence, internal and external, we submit the present as a clear
instance in which the two oldest copies conspire in a false and
highly improbable reading.

(9). Luke xxii. 48,44. & On δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος ἀπ᾽ οὐρα-
νοῦ ἐνισχύων αὐτόν. καὶ γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ, ἐκτενέστερον προσ-
ηύχετο' ἐγένετο δὲ ὁ ἱδρὼς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος κατα-
βαίνοντες ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν. It 15 ἃ positive relief to know that any
lingering doubt which may have hung over the authenticity of
these verses, whose sacred words the devout reader of Scripture
could so ill spare, is completely dissipated by their being con-
tained in Cod. N: it is more to be desired than hoped, that the
admitted error of Cod. B in this place would make some of its
advocates more chary of their confidence in cases where it is less
countenanced by other witnesses than in the instance before us’.
The two verses are omitted in ABRT, 124 (in 13 only ὠφθη
δὲ is prima manu), f of the Old Latin, Wilkins’ Memphitic and
some Thebaic and Armenian manuscripts: A, however, affixes
to the latter part of v. 42 (πλὴν), “to which they cannot belong,”
(Tregelles), the proper Ammonian and Eusebian numerals for

vv. 43—4 (4 : see p. 53), and thus shows that its scribe was
acquainted with the passage?: some Armenian codices only leave

1 Implicit faith in Cod. B seems almost an article of their creed with some
Biblical critics. Witness worthy Mr Herman Heinfetter, whose obliging circular
letters are very well known—at least by sight—to most English students of Scripture.
“‘T...submit,” he writes, ‘that...seeing that the Vatican Manuscript does not con-
tain, One Single Passage, that can be Demonstrated to be Spurious; or that by the
Evidence of other Manuscripts, and of the Context, admits of, Just Doubt, as to its
authenticity [what of e.g. Matth. xxvii. 4017; A Position that no other Manuscript
enjoys; That Man is bound to accept the Testimony of that Manuscript, alone, as
his present Text of the Sacred Record, wherever he possesses its Teaching” (Circu- .
lar, March 1, 1861). One might call this plan Comparative Criticism made easy.

3 These sections and canons illustrate the criticism of the text in some other
places: e.g. Matth. xvi. 2, 3 (Tregelles, Account of Printed Text, p. 205); xvii. 21,
which latter Eusebius virtually rejects, when he refers the parallel passage Mark
ix, 28—29 to his tenth canon (sce p. 52).

TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 435

out v. 44. In Codd. I. 123. 344 Scrivener’s do (v secundd
manu in v. 43) the verses are obelized, and marked by asterisks
in ESVA, 24. 36. 161. 166. 274. <A scholion in Cod. 34
[x1] speaks of its absence from some copies’. In all known
Evangelistaria and their cognate Cod. 69* (see p. 151) the two
verses, omitted in this place, follow Matth. xxvi. 39, as a regu-
lar part of the lesson for the Thursday in Holy Week (see
p- 72): in the same place the margin of C (¢erti@ manu) con-
tains the passage, C being defective in Luke xxii. from v. 19.
Codd. LQ place the Ammonian sections and number the Euse-
bian canons differently from the rest (but this kind of irregularity
often occurs in manuscripts), and the Philoxenian margin in one
of Adler’s manuscripts (Assem. 2) states that it is not found “im
Evangeliis apud Alexandrinos, et propterea {non?] posuit eam
S. Cyrillus in homilia...:”’ the fact being that the verses are
not found in Cyril’s Homilies on Luke lately published in
Syriac, nor does Athanasius ever allude to them. They are
read, however, in Codd. DFGHKLMQUXA.1. and all other
known cursives, without any marks of suspicion, in the Peshito,
Curetonian (omitting am οὐρανοῦ), Philoxenian and Jerusa-
lem Syriac, the Aithiopic, Thebaic, Memphitic and Armenian
manuscripts and editions, the Old Latin a. ὁ. ὁ. 6. 7. g1.7, and
the Vulgate. The effect of this great preponderance is enhanced
by the early and express testimony cf Fathers. Justin Martyr
(Trypho, 103) cites pads ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι as contained ἐν τοῖς
ἀπομνημονεύμασι a φημι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ Kal τῶν
ἐκείνοις παρακολουθησάντων (sce Luke 1. 8, Alford) συντετάχθαι.
Trenaeus (111. 222) declares that ἕδρωσε θρόμβους αἵματος. Hip-
polytus twice, Dionysius of Alexandria, &e. are cited to the
same purport by Tregelles, N. 7. ad loc. Hilary, on the other
hand, declares that the passage is not found “in Graecis et
in Latinis codicibus compluribus”’ (p. 1062 a, Benedictine edition,
1693), a statement which Jerome, who leans much on others in
such matters, repeats to the echo (sce pp. 390, 431). Epiphanius,
however, in a passage we have before alluded to (p. 391),
charges “ the orthodox” with removing ἔκλαυσε in ch. xix. 41,
though Irenaeus had used it against the Docetae, φοβηθέντες καὶ

1 ἱστέον ὅτι τὰ περὶ τῶν θρόμβων τινα τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐκ ἔχουσιν : adding that
the clause is cited by Dionysius the Areopagite [v], Gennadius [v], Epiphanius and
other holy Fathers.

28—2

480 APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS

μὴ νοήσαντες αὐτοῦ τὸ τέλος Kal TO ἰσχυρότατον, Kal γενόμενος
ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ ἵδρωσε, καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἱδρὼς αὐτοῦ ὡς θρόμβοι αἵματος,
καὶ @h0n ἄγγελος ἐνισχύων αὐτόν: Epiphan. Ancor. XXXI.*
Thus too Arius apud Epiphanium, Didymus, Gregory Nazi-
anzen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and a host of later writers ac-
knowledge these two important verses. Davidson adds that
“the Syrians are censured by Photius, the Armenians by
Nicon [x], Isaac the Catholic, and others, for expunging the
passage” (Bibl. Critic. 11. p. 438).

Of all recent editors, Lachmann alone has doubted the au-
thenticity of the verses, and enclosed them within brackets: but
for the accidental presence of the fragment Cod. Q his hard rule
—“‘mathematica recensendi ratio,’ as Tischendorf terms it—
would have forced him to expunge them (see p. 341), unless
indeed he judged (which is probably true) that Cod. A makes
as much in their favour as against them. So far as the lan-
guage of Epiphanius is concerned, it does not appear that this
passage was rejected by the orthodox as repugnant to their
notions of the Lord’s Divine character, and such may not have
been at all the origin of the variation. "We may just as reason-
ably trace the removal of the paragraph from its proper place in
St Luke to the practice of the Lectionaries, whose principal
lessons (such as those of the Holy Week would be) were cer-
tainly settled in the Greek Church as early as the fourth cen-
tury (see above, p. 64, and notes).

(10). Jonni. 18. ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὧν εἰς τὸν κόλπον TOU
πατρός... This passage exhibits in a few ancient documents of
high consideration the remarkable variation θεὸς for vids, which
however, according to the form of writing universal in the
oldest codices (see pp. 14, 43), would require but the change of a
single letter, TC or OC. In behalf of OC stand Codd. NBC
prima manu, and L (all wanting the article before μονογενὴς,
and δὲ omitting the ὁ ὧν that follows), 33 alone among cursive

1 The reader will see that I have understood this passage, with Grotius, as
applying to an orthodox tampering with Luke xix. 41, not with xxii. 4344. As
the text of Epiphanius stands I cannot well do otherwise, since Mill’s mode of
punctuation (NV. 7, Proleg. § 797) cannot be endured, and leaves καὶ τὸ ἰσχυρότα-
Tov unaccounted for. Yet I confess that there is no trace of any meddling with
ἔκλαυσε by any one, and I know not where Irenaeus cites it.

TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 437

manuscripts, of the versions the Peshito (not often found in such
company), and the margin of the Philoxenian (whose affinity
with Cod. L is very decided, see p. 109), the Memphitic, AXthio-
pic (Roman edition, see p. 278), and a host of Fathers, some
expressly (e.g. Clement of Alexandria, Didymus de Trinitate,
Epiphanius, &c.), others by apparent reference. Their testi-
monies are elaborately set forth by Tregelles, who strenuously
maintains θεὸς as the true reading, and thinks it much that
Arius, though “opposed to the dogma taught,” upholds povo-
yevns θεός. It may be that the term suits that heretic’s system
better than it does the Catholic doctrine: it certainly does not
contute it. For the received reading υἱὸς we can allege AC
(terted manu) EFGHKMSUVXAA (Ὁ and the other uncials
being defective), every cursive manuscript except 33 (including
Tregelles’ allies 1. 69), all the Latin versions, the Curetonian,
Philoxenian and Jerusalem Syriac, the last on Tregelles’ own
evidence, the Armenian and Platt’s Atthiopic. The array of
Fathers is less imposing, but includes Athanasius (often), Chry-
sostom, and the Latin writers, down from Tertullian. Origen,
Eusebius and some others have both readings.

Tregelles, who seldom notices internal probabilities in his
critical notes, here pleads that an ἅπαξ λεγόμενον like μονογενὴς
θεὸς might easily be changed by copyists into the more familiar
μονογενὴς υἱὸς from John ii. 16; 18; 1 John iv. 9, and he would
therefore apply Bengel’s Canon (I. see p. 371). Alford’s remark,
however, is very sound, “ We should be introducing great harsh-
ness into the sentence, and a new and [to us moderns] strange
term into Scripture, by adopting θεός: a consequence which
ought to have no weight whatever where authority is over-
powering, but may fairly be weighed where this is not so. The
‘praestat procliviori ardua’ finds in this case a legitimate limit”
(N. 7. note on John i. 18).

Those who will resort to “ ancient evidence exclusively” for
the recension of the text may well be perplexed in dealing with
this passage. ‘The oldest manuscripts, versions and writers are
hopelessly divided, so that we can well understand how some
critics (without a shadow of authority worth notice) have come
to suspect both θεὸς and υἱὸς to be accretions or spurious ad-
ditions to μονογενής. If the principles advocated in Chap. vit.
be true, the present is just such a case as calls for the interposi-
tion of the more recent uncial and cursive codices; and when we

438 APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS

find that they all, with the single exception of Cod. 33, defend
the reading μονογενὴς vids, we feel safe in concluding that for
once Codd. SBC and the Peshito do not approach the autograph
of St John so nearly as Cod. A, the Curetonian Syriac and Old
Latin versions.

(11). Joun νυν. 3,4. ἐκδεχομένων τὴν τοῦ ὕδατος κίνησιν.
ἄγγελος γὰρ κατὰ καιρὸν κατέβαινεν ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ, καὶ
ἐτάρασσε τὸ ὕδωρ' ὁ οὖν πρῶτος ἐμβὰς μετὰ τὴν ταραχὴν τοῦ
ὕδατος, ὑγιὴς ἐγίνετο, ᾧ δήποτε κατείχετο νοσήματι. This
passage is expunged by Tischendorf, Tregelles and Alford,
obelized (=) by Griesbach, but retained by Scholz and Lach-
mann. ‘The evidence against it is certainly very considerable:
Codd. SBC*D, 33. 157. 314., but 1). 33 contain ἐκδεχομένων...
κίνησιν, which alone A*L. 18. omit. The words from ἄγγελος
yap to νοσήματι are noted with asterisks or obeli (employed with-
out much discrimination) in SA. 8.11?. 14 (ἄγγελος... ὕδωρ being
left out). 21. 24. 32. 36.145. 161. 166. 230. 262. 269. 299. 348.
408, Scrivener’s dkw and Armenian manuscripts. The Philoxe-
nian margin marks from ἄγγελος to ὕδωρ with an asterisk, the
remainder of the verse with obeli. The whole passage is given,
although with that unusual variation in the reading which often
indicates grounds for suspicion’, in EFGHIKMUVA and all
known cursives not enumerated above: of these Cod. I [yr] is
of the greatest weight. Cod. A contains the whole passage,
but down to κίνησιν secunda manu; Cod. C also the whole,
tertia@ manu. Of the versions, Cureton’s Syriac, the Thebaic,
Schwartze’s Memphitic, some Armenian manuscripts, Καὶ l. g of
the Old Latin, san., harl.* and two others of the Vulgate (vid.
Griesbach.) are for omission; the Roman edition of the Aithiopic
leaves out what the Philoxenian margin obelizes, but the Peshito
and Jerusalem Syriac, all Latin copies not aforenamed, Wil-
kins’ Memphitic, and Armenian editions are for retaining the
disputed words. Tertullian clearly recognises them (“ Piscinam
Bethsaidam angelus interveniens commovebat,” de Baptismo, 5),

1 To give but a very small part of the variations in v. 4: δὲ (pro γὰρ) L. α. ὗ. δ.
3. Vulg. — γὰρ Evst. 51. Memph. - κυρίου (post γὰρ AKLA. 12. 13. 69.
Scrivener’s acdpw, fifteen others: at rod θεοῦ 152. Evst. 53. 54. -- κατὰ καιρὸν
a. b. ff. ἐλούετο (pro κατέβαινεν) A (K) wt, 42, Althiop. — ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ a. b. ff.
ἐταράσσετο τὸ U6. COOGHIMUVA". Scrivener’s abdefkpqvHx, many others. +In
piscinam (post éufas) c, Clementine Vulg. ἐγένετο FL. 69, at least 15 others.

TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 439

as do Cyril, Chrysostom, Ambrose (éwzce), Theophylact and Eu-
thymius. No other ecclesiastical writers allude to the narrative,
unique and perplexing as it is.

The first clause (€xdey...... κίνησιν) is probably absent from
Cod. δὲ, though Tischendorf only speaks of the verse beginning
with ἄγγελος : in that case it can hardly stand, in spite of the
versions which support it, as DI are the oldest manuscript wit-
nesses in its favour, and it bears much of the appearance of a
gloss brought in from the margin (see p. 373, note). The suc-
ceeding verse is harder to deal with; but for the countenance of
the versions and the testimony of Tertullian, Cod. A could
never resist the joint authority of δὲ ΒΟ), illustrated as they are
by the marks of suspicion set in so many later copies. Yet
if v. 4 be indeed but an “‘cnsertion to complete that implied in the
narrative with reference to the popular belief” (Alford, ad loc.),
it is much more in the manner of Cod. D and the Curetonian
Syriac, than of Cod. A and the Latin versions; and since these
last two are not often found in unison, and together with
the Peshito, opposed to the other primary documents, it is not
very rash to say that when such a conjunction does occur, it
proves that the reading was early, widely diffused, and exten-
sively received. Yet, after all, if the passage as it stands in our
common text can be maintained as genuine at all, it must be,
we apprehend, on the principle suggested above, Chap. 1. ὃ 11.
Ῥ- 10:

(12). Joun vu. 538—viii. 11. On no other grounds than
those just intimated can this celebrated and important para-
graph, the pericope adulterae as it is called, be regarded as a
portion of St John’s Gospel. It is absent from too many excel-
lent copies not to have been wanting in some of the very
earliest ; while the arguments in its favour, internal even more
than external, are so powerful, that we can scarcely be brought
to think it an unauthorised appendage to the writings of one,
who in another of his inspired books deprecated so solemnly
the adding to or taking away from the blessed testimony he
was commissioned to bear (Apoc. xxii. 18, 19). If ch. xx.
30, 31 show signs of having been the original end of this Gospel,
and ch. xxi. be a later supplement by the Apostle’s own hand,
which I think with Dean Alford is evidently the case, why
should not St John have inserted in this second edition both

440 APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS

the amplification in ch. v. 4 and this most edifying and emi-
nently Christian narrative? The appended chapter (xxi.) would
thus be added at once to all copies of the Gospels then in cireu-
lation, though a portion of them might well overlook the minuter
change in ch. v. 4, or from obvious though mistaken motives,
might hesitate to receive for general use or public reading the
history of the woman taken in adultery.

It must be in this way, if at all, that we can assign to the
Evangelist ch. vii. 53—viii. 11: on all intelligent principles of
mere criticism the passage must needs be abandoned. It is
entirely omitted (viii. 12 following continuously to vii. 52) in
the uncial Codd. NA*BC!T (all first class authorities) LXA,
though LA leave a void space (like B in Mark xvi. 9—20)
too small to contain the verses, before which A* began to write
viii. 12 after vii. 52. .

Add to these the cursives 2°. b*',3. 12. 21. 22. 33. 36.
44. 49. 72. 87. 95. 96. 97. 106. 108. 128. 131. 134. 139. 148,
149. 157. 168. 169. 181. 186. 194. 195. 210. 213. 228. 249.
260. 253. 255. 261. 269. 314. 331. 388. 392. 401: it is absent
in the first, added by a second hand in a**. 9, 15. 179. 232. 284.
853: while ch. vill. 3—11 are wanting in 77. 242. 324 (54 cur-
sive copies). The passage is noted by an asterisk or obelus in
EMSA,’ Serivener’s klmn, 4. 8. 14. 18. 24. 34. 35. 109. 125.
141. 148 (secundé manu). 156. 161. 166. 167. 178. 179. 189.
196. 198. 202. 212. 226. 230. 231 (sec. man.). 241. 246. 271.
274. 277. 284? 285. 338. 355. 360. 361. 363. 376. 391 (secund.
manu). 894. 408. 436: vv. 3—11 in 128. 137.147: with expla-
natory scholia appended in 164. 215. 262* (52 cursives). Scholz,
who has taken unusual pains in the examination of this question,
enumerates 292 cursives, Scrivener 15 more, which contain the
paragraph with no trace of suspicion, as do the uncials DF
(partly defective) GHKUT (with an hiatus after στήσαντες αὐτὴν
v. 3). Cod. 145 has it only secundé manu, with a note that from
ch. vill. 3 τοῦτο τὸ κεφάλαιον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀντυγράφοις οὐ κεῖται.

Codd. 1. 19. 20. 129. 135. 207. 301. 347. {ἰ50}}1 (see Ρ. 181). Evst.

1 Codd. AC are defective in this place, but by measuring the space we have
shown (p. 80, note) that A does not contain the twelve verses, and the same
method applies to C,

* The kindred copies A, 262, &c. have the following scholium: τὰ ὠβελισμένα
ἔν τισιν ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖται, οὐδὲ᾿ ἈΑπολ[λ]ιναρίῳ: ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ὅλα κεῖται"
μνημονεύουσι τῆς περικοπῆς ταύτης καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ἐν αἷς ἐξέθεντο διατάξεσιν εἰς

TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 441

86 (see p. 216) banish the whole pericope to the end of the Gospel.
Of these, Cod. 1 in a scholium pleads its absence ἐν τοῖς πλείστοις
ἀντυγράφοις, and from the Commentaries of Chrysostom, Cyril of
Alexandria, and Theodore of Mopsuestia; while 135. 301 con-
fess they found it ἐν ἀρχαίοις ἀντυγράφοις : Cod. 20 is obelized,
and has a scholium. In 37. 102. 105. ch. vill. 3—11 alone are
put at the end of the Gospel, which is all that 259 supplies,
though its omission in the text begins at ch. vil. 53. Cod. 237,
on the contrary, omits only from ch. vi. 3, but at the end inserts
the whole passage from ch. vii. 53: in tisch’, vil. 53—viii. 2 is
primé manu with an asterisk, the rest later. Cod. 225 sets ch.
vil. 58—viii. 11 after ch. vii. 836; in 115, ch. viii. 12 is inserted
between ch. vil. 52 and 53, and repeated again in its proper place.
Finally, 13. 69. 124. 346 give the whole passage at the end of
Luke xxi, that order being apparently suggested from comparing
Luke xxi. 37 with John viii. 1; and ὥρθριζε Luke xxi. 38 with
ὄρθρου John viii. 2. In the Lectionaries, as we have had occa-
sion to state before (p. 69, note), this section was never read as a
part of the lesson for Pentecost (John vii. 37—viii. 12), but
was reserved for the festivals of such saints as Theodora Sept. 18,
or Pelagia Oct. 8 (see p. 74), and in many Service-books, whose
Menology was not very full, it would thus be omitted altogether.
Accordingly in that remarkable Lectionary, the Jerusalem Syriac,
the lesson for Pentecost ends at ch. viii. 2, the other verses (3—
11) being assigned to St Pelagia’s day.

Of the other versions the paragraph is entirely omitted in the
true Peshito (being inserted in printed books under the circum-
stances before stated, p. 233), and in the Philoxenian, though it
appears in,the Codex Barsalibi (see p. 243 and note), from which
White appended it to the end of St John: a Syriac note in this
copy states that it does not belong to the Philoxenian, but was
translated in A.D.622 by Maras, Bishop of Amida. Maras, how-
ever, lived about A.D. 520, and a fragment of a very different
version of the section, bearing his name, is cited by Assemani
(Biblioth. Orient. 11. 53) from the writings of Barsalibi himself
(Cod. Clem.- Vat. Syr.16). Ridley’s text bears much resemblance
to that of De Dieu (p. 233), as does a fourth version of ch. vii.

οἰκοδομὴν τῆς ἐκκλησίας. The Apostolos (or πραξαπόστολος, see pp. 63, 211) would
often contain the Menology, in the course of which alone this passage was wont to
be read.

442 APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS

53—viil. 11 found by Adler (N. Z. Version. Syr. p. 57) in a
Paris codex, with the marginal annotation that this “ σύνταξις"
is not in all the copies, but was interpreted into Syriac by the
Abbot Mar Paulus. Of the other versions it is not found in the
Thebaic, some of Wilkins’ and all Schwartze’s Memphitic copies,
the Gothic, Zohrab’s Armenian from six ancient codices (but
five very recent ones and Uscan’s edition contain it), or in a. fi ὦ
(text). g of the Old Latin. In ὦ the whole text from ch. vii. 44
to viii. 12 has been wilfully erased, but the passage is found in
c. e (we have given them at large, p. 268). 7”. g. 7 (margin),
the Vulgate, (see am., for., p. 268), Authiopic, Slavonic, Anglo-
Saxon, Persic (but ina Vatican codex placed in ch. x), and Arabic.

Of the Fathers, Euthymius [x11], the first among the Greeks
to mention the paragraph in its proper place, declares that παρὰ
τοῖς ἀκριβέσιν ἀντυγράφοις ἢ οὐχ εὕρηται ἢ ὠβέλισται: διὸ
φαίνονται παρέγγραπτα καὶ προσθήκη. The Apostolic Consti-
tutions had plainly alluded to it, and Eusebius (Mist. Heel. 111.
39, fin.) had described from Papias, and as contained in the
Gospel of the Hebrews, the story of a woman ἐπὶ πολλαῖς ἅμαρ-
τίαις διαβχληθείσης ἐπὶ τοῦ κυρίου, but did not at all regard it
as Scripture. Codd. KM too are the earliest which raise the
number of τίτλοι or larger κεφάλαια in St John from 18 to 19,
by interpolating κεφ. é. περὶ τῆς μοιχαλίδος.

Among the Latins, as being in their old version, the narra-
tive was more generally received for St John’s. Jerome testifies
that it was found in his time “in multis et Graecis et Latinis
codicibus ;’’ Ambrose cites it, and Augustine (de adult. conjugiis,
Lib. 11. 6. 7) complains that “ nonnulli modicae fidei, vel potius
inimici verae fidei,” removed it from their codicgs, “ credo
metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari mulieribus suis” (see p. 376
and note 1)’.

When to all these sources of doubt, and to so many hostile
authorities, is added the fact that in no portion of the N.T. do the
variations of manuscripts (of D beyond all the rest) and other
documents bear any sort of proportion, whether in number or
extent, to those in these twelve verses (of which full evidence
may be seen in any collection of various readings), we cannot
help admitting that if this section be indeed the composition of

1 ‘Similiter Nicon ejectam esse vult narrationem ab Armenis, βλαβερὰν εἶναι
τοῖς πολλοῖς τὴν τοιαύτην ἀκρόασιν dicentibus.” Tischendorf. ad loc. See too p. 436.

TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 443

St John, it has been transmitted to us under circumstances
widely different from those connected with any other genuine
passage of Scripture whatever.

(13). Acts vill. 37. Εἶπε δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος, εἰ πιστεύεις ἐξ ὅλης
τῆς καρδίας, ἔξεστιν. ᾿Αποκριθεὶς δὲ εἶπε, Πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ
Θεοῦ εἶναι τὸν ᾿Τησοῦν Χριστόν. We cannot question the spuri-
ousness of this verse, which seems to have been received from
the margin, where the formula Πιστεύω «.7.. had been placed,
extracted from some Church Ordinal. This is just the portion
cited by Irenaeus, both in Greek’ and Latin: so early had the
words found a place in the sacred text. Yet it is contained in
no manuscripts except EK (D, which might perhaps be expected
to favour it, being here defective) 4 (secunddé manu). 13. 15. 18?
27. 29. 36. 60. 69. 100. 105. 106. Apost. 5. 13 once and in the
margin, 14.25 &c., in e alone out of Scrivener’s thirteen: manu-
scripts of good character, but quite inadequate to prove the au-
thenticity of the verse, even though they did not differ considerably
in the actual readings they exhibit, which is always in itself a
ground of reasonable suspicion (see above, pp.426, 438,442). Here
again, as in Matth. xxvil. 35, Gutbier and Schaaf (see p. 233) in-
terpolated in their Peshito texts the passage as translated into
Syriac and placed within brackets by Elias Hutter (p. 232): the
Philoxenian also exhibits it, but marked with an asterisk (p. 244).
It is found in the Old Latin m although in an abridged form, in
the Vulgate (both printed and demid., but not in am. prima
manu, fuld. &c.), and in the satellites of the Vulgate, the
Armenian, Polyglott Arabic and Slavonic. Bede, however, who
used Cod. E, knew Latin copies in which the verse was wanting ;
yet it was known to Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Pacian [rv],
&c. among the Latins, to Oecumenius and Theophylact (twice
quoted) among the Greeks. Erasmus seems to have inserted
the verse by-a comparison of the later hand of Cod. 4. with the
Vulgate’; it is not in the Complutensian edition. This passage

1 The form τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν, objected to by Michaelis, is vindicated by
Matth. i. 18, the reading of which cannot rightly be impugned. See above, p. 419.

2 ὡς αὐτὸς ὁ εὐνοῦχος πεισθεὶς Kal παραύτικα ἀξιῶν βαπτισθῆναι, ἔλεγε, πιστεύω
τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ εἶναι ᾿Τησοῦν Χριστόν. Harvey, Vol. u. p. 62.

3 “Non reperi in graeco codice, quanquam arbitror omissum librariorum in-
curia. Nam et haec in quodam codice graeco asscripta reperi, sed in margine.”
Erasmus, NV, 7, 1516.

444 APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS

affords us a curious instance of an addition well received in the
Western Church from the second century downwards (seerp. 387)
and afterwards making some way among the later Greek codices
and writers.

(14). Acts xv. 34. ἔδοξε δὲ τῷ Lira ἐπιμεῖναι αὐτοῦ. This
verse is omitted in ABEGH (δὲ unknown), and of the cursives
by lo“ and six more collated by Scrivener (including 31), and by
full fifty others. Erasmus inserted it in his editions from the
margin of 4. It is wanting in the Peshito (only that Tremel-
lius and Gutbier between them thrust their own version into the
text), the Memphitic, Polyglott Arabic, Slavonic, the best manu-
scripts of the Latin Vulgate (am., fuld., demid., &c), Chrysostom
and Theophylact. In C it runs εδοξεν de τω otha επιμειναι
avtovs, which is followed by many cursives: some of which,
however, have αὐτοῦ, two αὐτοῖς, Scrivener’s aef and four others
αὐτόθι, with the Complutensian Polyglott. The common text is
found in the Thebaic, Tremellius’ Syriac, the Philoxenian with
an asterisk (see p. 244), Erpenius’ Arabic, Theophylact and
(Ecumenius. In D we read εδοξε δὲ τω σείλεα επίμειναι προς
secundd manu] αὐτοὺς (sustinere eos d) μονος δὲ ἑουδας επορευθη,
which Lachmann cites in Latin as extant ὧι this form only in
one Vienna Codex (for which see his V. 7. Proleg. Vol. 1. p. Xxix.):
thus too the Armenian (not that of Venice) and printed Slavonic.
The common Vulgate, Cassiodorus (see p. 262), and Hutter’s
Syriac, add “Jerusalem,” so that the Clementine Latin stands
thus: “ Visum est autem Silae ibi remanere; Judas autem solus
abiit Jerusalem.” The /&thiopic is rendered ‘‘ Et perseveravit
Paulus manens,” to which Platt’s copies add “ ibi.”

No doubt this verse is an unauthorised addition, self-con-
demned indeed by its numerous variations. One can almost
trace its growth, and in the shape presented by the Received
text it must have been (as Mill conjectures) a marginal gloss,
designed to explain how (notwithstanding the terms of v. 33)
Silas was at hand in v. 40, conveniently for St Paul to choose
him as a companion in travel.

(15). Acts xx. 28. τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο
διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος. This reading of the Received text, though
different from that of the majority of copies, is pretty sure to be

TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 445

correct. It is upheld by NB (the latter now for certain) 4. 22.
46. 65. 66*(?) 68. 84. 89. 154. 162, to which we can now add
23. 25. 87; so also Apost. 12, and ὁ szlentio, on which one can
lay but little stress, 7. 12. 16. 39. 56. 64. and Scrivener’s ce,
codices not now in England. “Dei” is read by all known
manuscripts and editions of the Vulgate except the Compluten-
sian, which was probably altered to suit the parallel Greek.
Lee’s edition of the Peshito (see p. 234) has θεοῦ, from three
codices (the Travancore, a Vatican Lectionary of Adler [x1], and
one at the Bodleian), and so has the Philoxenian text. Tod
κυρίου (differing but by one letter, see our Plates v. 13; 1x. 25)
is in AC*DE (and therefore in de), a**. 13. 15. 18. 36 (text).
40. 69. 73. 81. 95*. 130. 156. 163. 180. Apost. 58, the Philoxe-
nian margin, the Thebaic, Memphitic, Armenian, and possibly
the Roman A&thiopic (see p. 278), though there the same word
is said to represent both @v and κυ. Platt’s Aithiopic, all edi-
tions of the Peshito except Lee’s, and its secondary version, Er-
penius’ Arabic, have τοῦ χριστοῦ, with Origen once, Theodoret
twice, and four copies of Athanasius: the Old Latin m “Jesu
Christi.” Other variations too weakly supported to be worth
notice are Tod κυρίου θεοῦ ὃ. 95**, the Polyglott Arabic: τοῦ
θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου 47, and the Georgian τοῦ κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ. The
great mass of later manuscripts give τοῦ κυρίου καὶ θεοῦ, viz. C
(tertié@ manu), GH, Scrivener’s bdfghklmo, and more than one
hundred other cursives, including probably every one not parti-
cularized above. This is the reading of the Complutensian, both
in the Greek and Latin, and of some modern critics who would
fain take a safe and middle course; but is countenanced by no
version except the Slavonic (see p. 280), and by no ecclesiastical
writer before Theophylact [x1]. It is plainly but a device for
reconciling the two principal readings; yet from thé non-repetition
of the article and from the general turn of the sentence it asserts
the divinity of the Saviour as unequivocally as θεοῦ could do
alone. Our choice evidently lies between κυρίου and θεοῦ, which
are pretty equally supported by manuscripts and versions:
Patristic testimony, however, may slightly incline to the latter.
Foremost comes that bold expression of Ignatius [A.p. 107] ava-
ζωπυρήσαντες ἐν αἵματι θεοῦ (ad Ephes. i.), which the old Latin
version renders ‘“ Christi Dei,” and the later interpolator softens
into χριστοῦ. It may be true that “he does not adopt it asa

446 APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS

quotation’? (Davidson ad loc.), yet nothing short of Scriptural
authority could have given such early vogue to a term 80 start-
ling as αἷμα θεοῦ, which is also employed by Tertullian. The
elder Basil, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria (¢wice), Ibas (in
the Greek), Ambrose, Caelestine, Fulgentius, Primasius, Cassio-
dorus, &c., not to mention writers so recent as (icumenius and
Theophylact, expressly support the same word. Manuscripts
of Athanasius vary between θεοῦ, κυρίου, and χριστοῦ, but his
evidence would be regarded as hostile to the Received text,
inasmuch as he states (as alleged by Wetstein) that οὐδαμοῦ δὲ
αἷμα θεοῦ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς παραδεδώκασιν ai γραφαί: ᾿Αρειανῶν τὰ
τοιαῦτα τολμήματα (contra Apollinar.): only that for καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς
(which even Tischendorf cites in his last edition), the correct read-
ing is δίχα σαρκὸς or διὰ σαρκός, a citation fatal to any such
inference. In Chrysostom too the readings fluctuate, and some
(e.g. Tregelles) have questioned whether the Homilies on the
Acts, wherein he has θεοῦ, are of his composition. In behalf
of κυρίου are cited the Latin version of Irenaeus, Lucifer of
Cagliari, Augustine, Jerome, Ammonius, Eusebius, Didymus,
Athanasius (?), Chrysostom, and the Apostolic Constitutions,
while the exact expression sanguis Dei was censured by Origen
and others. It has been urged, however, and not without some
show of reason (Nolan, Jntegrity of Greek Vulgate, p. 517, note
135), that the course of Irenaeus’ argument proves that θεοῦ was
used in his lost Greek text. After all, internal evidence—subjec-
tive feeling if it must be so called—will decide the eritic’s choice
where authorities are so divided as here. It seems reasonable to
say that the whole mass of witnesses for τοῦ κυρίου καὶ θεοῦ
vouches for the existence of θεοῦ in the earliest codices, the com-
mon-place κυρίου being the rather received from other quarters, as
it tends to point more distinctly to the Divine Person indicated
in the passage. If this view be accepted, the preponderance in
fayour of θεοῦ, undoubtedly the harder form (see p. 371), is very
marked, and when the consideration suggested above (p. 375)
from Dean Alford is added, there will remain little room for
hesitation. It has been pleaded on both sides of the question,
and appears little relevant to the case of either, that St Paul
employs in ten places the expression ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ, but
never once ἐκκλησία τοῦ κυρίου or τοῦ χριστοῦ.

It is hardly worth while to mention that, in the place of τοῦ

TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 447

ἰδίου αἵματος, the more emphatic form τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου ought
to be adopted from A (see Plate v. Νο. 15) BCDE, (Sis unknown)
Scrivener’s acm (c being cited here by Sanderson), with some
twenty other cursives; Didymus, &c.; while τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος
is in GH, the majority of cursives, Athanasius, Chrysostom, &c.

(16). Rom. v. 1. Δικαιωθέντες οὖν ἐκ πίστεως εἰρήνην ἔχο-
μεν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. Here, as in 2 Cor. iii. 3 (see p. 877) we find
the chief uncials support a reading which is manifestly unsuit-
able to the context, although, since it does not absolutely
destroy the sense, it does not (like the other passage) lack de-
fenders. Codd. δὲ (teste Tischendorf.) B for ἔχομεν have prima
manu ἔχωμεν, and though some doubt has been thrown on the
primitive reading of B, yet Mai and Tregelles (Account of Printed
Text, p. 156) are eyewitnesses to the fact. Codd. ACDKL, not
less than 26 cursives (three out of Scrivener’s eleven), including
the remarkable copies 17. 37, also read ἔχωμεν, as do ὦ. 6. Καὶ g,
the Vulgate (‘‘habeamus’’), the Peshito Syriac probably

(oN al Ἰόσι: ), Memphitic, Aithiopic and Arabic. Chry-

sostom too supports this view. The case for ἔχομεν is weaker
in itself: Codd. SB secundé manu, FG (in spite of the con-
trary testimony of f g, their respective Latin versions), the
majority of the cursive manuscripts, Hpiphanius, Cyril, and the
Slavonic. The later Syriac seems to combine both readings

(la leX ἐν Δ. Ἰοσι: los): White translates “ habe-

mus,” but has no note on the passage. Had the scales been
equally poised, no one would hesitate to prefer ἔχομεν, for the
closer the context is examined the clearer it will appear that
inference not exhortation is the Apostle’s purpose: hence those
who most regard “‘ ancient evidence” have struggled long before
they would admit ἔχωμεν into the text. The “Five Clergymen”
who recently benefited the English Church by revising its
Authorised version of this Epistle, even though they render “ Jet
us have peace with God,” are constrained to say, “An over-
whelming weight of authority has necessitated a change, which
at the first sight seems to impair the logical force of the Apostle’s
argument. No consideration, however, of this kind can be al-
lowed to interfere with the faithful exhibition of the true text, as
far as it can be ascertained ; and no doubt the real Word of God,
thus faithfully exhibited, will vindicate its own meaning, and

448 APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS

need no help from man’s shortsighted preference” (Preface,
Ῥ. vil). Every one must honour the reverential temper in which
these eminent men approached their delicate task; yet, if their
sentiments be true, where is the place for internal evidence at
all? A more “overwhelming weight” of manuscript authority
upholds καρδίαις in 2 Cor. ii. 3: shall we place it in the text
“leaving the real Word of God to vindicate its own meaning’’?
Ought we to assume that the reading found in the few most
ancient codices—not, in the case of Rom. v. 1, in the majority
of the whole collection—must of necessity be the “real Word of
God, faithfully exhibited”? I see no cause to reply in the
affirmative.

We conclude, therefore, that this is a case for the application
of the paradiplomatical canon (p. 376): that the itacism for o
(see pp. 10, 15), so familiar to all collators of Greek manuscripts,
~ crept into some very early copy, from which it was propagated
among our most venerable codices, even those from which the
earliest versions were made:—that this is one out of a small
number of well ascertained cases in which the united testi-
monies of the best authorities conspire in giving a worse read-
ing than that preserved by later and (for the most part) inferior

copies.

(17). 1 Cor. xiii. 3. ἐὰν παραδῶ τὸ σῶμά μου ἵνα καυθή-
σωμαι, “though I give my body to be burned.” Here we find
the undoubtedly false reading καυχήσωμαι in the two chief
codices AB (sic) and in 17: that of δὲ is not yet known. Je-
rome (see p. 356, note) testifies that in his time “ apud Graecos
ipsos ipsa exemplaria esse diversa,” and preferred καυχήσωμαι
(though all copies of the Latin have μέ ardeam or ut ardeat),
which is said to be countenanced by the Aithiopic and by a
manuscript of the Memphitic. This variation, which involves the
change of but one letter, “is worth notice, as showing that the
best uncial MSS. are not always to be depended upon, and
sometimes are blemished with errors’? (Wordsworth, N. 7, ad
loc.: see above, pp. 377, 418. It may have obtained the more
credit as each of the other principal readings (καυθήσομαι,
DEFGL. 44. 71. 80. 113%, Scrivener’s b’cdfhk and at least 12
others), and καυθήσωμαι (CK, 29. 37, and many others, Chry-
sostom, Theodoret, &c.) are anomalous, the former in respect to
mood, the latter to tense. The important cursive 73 has καυθή-

TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 449

σεται with some Latin copies: Codd. 1. 108*. Basil (Cyprian ?)
adopt καυθῇ: the Syriac (212), and I suppose the Arabic,

will suit either of these last. Lvidence seems to preponderate
on the side of καυθήσομαι, but in the case of these itacisms
manuscripts are very fallacious (see p. 448). Such a subjunc-
tive future as καυθήσωμαι, however, I should have been disposed
to question, had it not passed muster with much better scholars
than I am: but to illustrate it, as Tregelles does (Account of
Printed Text, p. 117, note), from ἵνα δώσῃ Apoc. viii. 3, is to
accomplish little, since δώσει is found in AC, Scrivener’s beghmn
(δωσι 4), 13. 87. 40. 48. 68, together with many others, in-
cluding Andreas (δώσῃ B alone of the uncials, δὲ being unknown),
and is justly approved by Lachmann and Tischendorf. It seems
most likely that in both places ἵνα, the particle of design, is fol-
lowed by the ¢ndicative future, as is clearly the case in Eph.vi.3.
In John xvii. ὃ even Tregelles adopts ἵνα γινώσκουσιν".

(18). Purp. 11. 1. εἴ τις κοινωνία πνεύματος, εἴ τινα σπλάγ-
χνα. For twa, to the critic’s great perplexity, tus is found in
NABCDEFGKL, that is, in all the uncials extant at this place.
As regards the cursives nearly the same must be said. Of the
13 collated by Scrivener 7 read tus (acdfgkln), and 5 τὸ (behmo):
Mill enumerates 16 others that give τίς, one (40) that has te:

1 T beg Dr Tregelles’ pardon for having nearly forgotten his third and last ex-
ample of the subjunctive future (Account of Printed Text, p. 212, note), for the
sake of whose visionary charms he is willing for once to be false even to Cod. B.
In John xvii. 2 ἵνα...δώσῃ is read by ACGKMSX. 33, c8, and (so far as I can
find) by no other manuscript whatever. On the other hand δώσει is supported by
BEHUYTIAA (8 is unknown, D has exy, Ldws), and (as it would seem) by every
other codex extant. Out of the 23 collated by myself for this chapter, it is found
in 22, and the following others have been expressly cited for δώσει: 1. 10. 11. 15s
22. 42. 45. 48. 53. 54. 55. 60. 61 (Dobbin). 63. 65. 66. 106. 118. 124. 127. 131. 142.
145. 157. 250. 262. Evst. 3. 22. 24. 36, and at least 50 others, one might say
all that have been collated with any degree of minuteness: so too the Compluten-
sian and first edition of Erasmus. The constant confusion of εἰ and ἡ at the
period when the uncials were written abundantly accounts for the reading of the
few, though AC are among them. In later times such itacisms were far more
rare in careful transcription, and the mediaeval copyists knew their native language
too well to fall into the habit in this passage. In 1 Pet. iii. 1, Wa κερδηθήσονται
is read by the uncials (ACGK), nearly all cursives, and the Complutensian
edition, in the place of -σωνται of B (Maz) and the Received text. Dr Tregelles
has accomplished much, but he is not likely, even with Lachmann’s aid, to reform
our Greek grammars.

450 APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS

Griesbach reckons 45 in favour of τίς, 8 (including Cod. 4) for
τι; to which Scholz adds a few more. One cursive (109) and a
manuscript of Theodoret have τε. Basil, Chrysostom (in manu-
script) and others read tis, as do the Complutensian, and R.
Stephens’ first two editions (see p. 299). In fact it may
be stated that no manuscript whatever has been cited for τίνα,
which is not therefore likely to be found in many. In spite of
what was said above (pp. 377, 418) with regard to far weaker
cases, it is impossible to blame editors for putting tus into the
text here before σπλάγχνα: to have acted otherwise (as Tis-
chendorf fairly observes) would have been ‘ grammatict quam
editoris partes agere.”’ Yet we may believe the reading to be as
false as it is intolerable, and to afford us another proof of the
early and (as the cursives shew) the well nigh universal corrup-
tion of our copies in some minute particulars. Of course Cle-
ment and later Fathers give τίνα, indeed it is surprising that
any cite otherwise; but ὧν the absence of definite documentary
proof, this can hardly be regarded as genuine. Probably St
Paul wrote τὸ (the reading of about 15 cursives), which would
readily be corrupted into ts, by reason of the o following
(TICIIAATXNA, see p. 10), and the tvs which had just pre-
ceded.

(19). Coxoss. ii.2. τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς Kat
τοῦ χριστοῦ, ‘of the mystery of God the Father, and of Christ.”
Here again we are under the disadvantage of discussing a pas-
sage of great moment, on which the best authorities are divided,
in ignorance of the testimony borne by Cod. X. If this docu-
ment should support the reading of B (approved by Lachmann,
Tregelles and Wordsworth), which it often so closely resembles,
we should be inclined with Ellicott to adopt its words, τοῦ
μυστηρίου τοῦ θεοῦ χριστοῦ (‘ita cod. nihil interponens inter
θεοῦ et χριστοῦ, Maz. 8° ed.), as “having every appearance of
being the original reading, and that from which the many per-
plexing variations have arisen” (see p. 372, Canon. 11). At
present it stands in great need of confirmation, as Hilary alone
supports it (but καὶ χριστοῦ Cyril), though the Scriptural cha-
racter of the expression is upheld by the language of ch. 1. 27
just preceding, and by the received text in 1 Tim. iii. 16.
Some, who feel a difficulty in understanding how χριστοῦ was

TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 451

removed from the text, if it ever had a place there, conceive
that the verse should end with θεοῦ, all additions, including
χριστοῦ the simplest, being accretions to the genuine passage.
These alleged accretions are τοῦ θεοῦ 6 ἐστι χριστός, manifestly
an expansion of χριστοῦ and derived from i. 27: τοῦ θεοῦ πα-
τρὸς τοῦ χριστοῦ: τοῦ θεοῦ Kal πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ χριστοῦ, the
final form of the received text. Now of these four readings
tod θεοῦ the shortest, and according to Griesbach, Scholz, Tis-
chendorf, Alford, and Mr Green, the true one, is found only
in a few, though confessedly good, cursives: 37. 71. 80*. 116.
(καὶ θεοῦ 23), the important second hand of 67, and the Venice
edition of the Armenian; witnesses too few and feeble, unless
we put our third Canon of internal evidence (p. 373) to a rather
violent use. Of the longer readings 6 ἐστιν χριστὸς is favoured
by D (though obelized by the second hand, which thus would
read only τοῦ θεοῦ), de (whose parallel Greek speaks differently),
Augustine, but apparently by no cursives. The form best vouched
for appears to be that of AC. 4, of the Sahidic and an Arabic
codex of 'Tischendorf, τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ χριστοῦ. To these
words “iu” is simply added by f (FGg are unfortunately lost
here) and other manuscripts of the Vulgate (am. fuld. &c.),
though the Clementine Vulgate has “Dei patris et Christi
Jesu,” the Complutensian (see p. 289) ‘dei et patris et Ὁ.
J.” With the Clementine Vulgate agree the Memphitic, and
(omitting ἐησοῦ) the Syriac, Arabic, 47. 73. Chrysostom; while
41. ΟἹ (0%). 115. 213. b*** (τοῦ @. καὶ π. τοῦ x.) strengthen the
case of AC. The received text is found in (apparently) the
great mass of cursives, in D (tertié manu), EKL, the Philox-
enian Syriac (but the καὶ after πατρὸς marked with the as-
terisk, p. 244), Theodoret, John Damascene and others. The
minor variations τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν χριστῷ of Clement and Ambrosi-
aster, τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἐν χριστῷ of 17 uphold D*, as may the
fEithiopic: we also find “dei Christi Jesu patris et domini”’
in tol., “dei patris et domini nostri Christi” in demid., but
these deserve not attention.

On reviewing the whole mass of conflicting evidence, we
may unhesitatingly reject the shortest form τοῦ θεοῦ, some of
whose maintainers do not usually found their text on cursive
manuscripts exclusively. We would gladly adopt τοῦ θεοῦ
χριστοῦ, so powerfully do internal considerations plead in its

29—2

452 APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS

favour, were it but a little better supported: the important doc-
trine which it declares, Scriptural and Catholic as it is, will
naturally make us only the more cautious in receiving it unre-
servedly. At present, perhaps, τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ χριστοῦ
may be looked upon as the most strongly attested, but in the
presence of so many opposing probabilities, a very small weight
might suftice to turn the critical scale.

(20). 1 Tim. i. 16. Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί. This text
has been the crux eriticorum. All extant Greek manuscripts
(Ὁ tertia manu, KL, some 200 cursives) read Θεὸς with the com-
mon text, except N* A*? C*?FG 17. 73. 181, which have ὃς;

‘D* which (after the Latin versions) has ὃ: Cod. B is here defec-
tive; the Leicester codex, 37, gives ὁ θς (sce Plate x11. No. 35,
1. 1), as if to combine two of the variations. In the abridged
form of writing usual in all manuscripts, even the oldest (see pp.
14, 43), the difference between OC and 6C consists only in the
presence or absence of two horizontal strokes; hence it is more
to be regretted than wondered at that the true reading of each of
the uncial authorities for the former is more or less open to question.
Respecting Cod. δὲ, indeed, we have as yet no other means of
information than the statement of Tischendorf, a most consum-
mate judge in such matters: “corrector aliquis, qui omnium ulti-
mus textum attigit, sacculi fere duodecimi, | pro os primae manés|
reposuit Beos, sed hoc tam caute ut antiquissimam scripturam intac-
tam relinqueret”’ (Notitia Cod. Sinait.p. 20), which seems unequi-
vocal enough. Nor is there any real doubt respecting the kindred
codices IG. From the photographed title-page of the published
Cod. Augiensis (ΒῪ 1. 9, and Matthaei’s facsimile of G (N. 7.
Vol. 1. p. 4) it will be seen that while there is not the least trace
of the horizontal line within the circle of omicron, the line above
the circle in both (OC) is not horizontal, but rises a little towards
the right: such a line not unfrequently in F, oftener in G, is
used (as here) to indicate the rough breathing: it sometimes stands
even for the lenis (6. g. ἴδιον 1 Cor. vi. 18; vii. 4; 87; tooa Phil.
ii. 6). Those who never saw Cod. C, must depend on Tischen-
dorf’s Exeursus (Cod. Ephraemi, pp. 39—42) and his facsimile,
imitated in Plate 1x, No. 24. His decision is that the primitive
reading was OC, but he was the first to discern a cross line
within O (faesimile |, 3, 8th letter); which, however, from the

TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 453

colour (“ subnigra’’) he judges to belong to the second or third
hand, rising upwards (a tendency rather exaggerated than other-
Wise in our plate) ; while the coarse line above, and the musical
notes (denoting a word of two syllables) below, are plainly of the
third hand. This verdict, especially delivered by such a man,
we cannot gainsay, and merely point to the fact that the cross
line in Θ, the ninth letter further on, which is certainly prima
manu, also ascends towards the right. Cod. A, on the contrary, I
have examined at least twenty times within as many years, and
yet am not able to assent to the conclusion of Mr Cowper (see
p- 409, note) when he says “we hope that no one will think it
possible, either with or without a lens, to ascertain the truth of
the matter by any inspection of the Codex” (Cod. Alex. Introd.
p- Xvill.) On the contrary, seeing (as every one must) with my
own eyes, I have always felt convinced with Berriman and the
earlier collators that Cod. A read ΘΟ, and so far as I am shaken
in my conviction at all, it is less by the adverse opinion even of
Dean Ellicott’, than by the newly-discovered fact (for there

1 The true reading of the Codex Alexandrinus in 1 Tim. iii. 16 has long been
an interesting puzzle with Biblical students. The manuscript, and especially the
leaf containing this verse (fol. 145), now very thin and falling into holes, must
have been in a widely different condition from the present when it first came to
England. At that period Young, Huish (see p. 83), and the rest who collated or
referred to it, believed that OC was written by the first hand. Mill (NV. 7. ad loc.)
declares that he had first supposed the primitive reading to be OC, seeing clearly
that the line over the letters had not been entirely made, but only thickened, by a
later hand, probably the same that traced the coarse, rude, recent, horizontal
diameter now running through the circle. On looking more closely, however, he
detected ‘‘ductus quosdam et vestigia satis certa...praesertim ad partem sinistram,
qua peripheriam literae pertingit,” evidently belonging to an earlier diameter,
which the thicker and later one had almost defaced. This old line was afterwards
seen by Dr John Berriman and four other persons with him, when he was preparing
his Lady Moyer’s Lecture for 17378 (Critical Dissertation on 1'Tim. iii. τό, p. 159).
Wetstein admitted the existence of such a transverse line, but referred it to the
tongue or sagitia of € on the reverse of the leaf, an explanation rejected by Woide,
but admitted by Tregelles, who states in opposition to Woide that “‘Part of the €
on the other side of the leaf does intersect the O, as we have seen again and again,
and which others with us have seen also” (Horne, Iv. p. 156). This last assertion
may be received as quite true, and yet not relevant to the point at issue. In an
Excursus appended to 1 Timothy in his edition of Zhe Pastoral Epistles (p. 100,
1856), Dean Ellicott declares, as the result of “minute personal inspection,” that
the original reading was ‘‘indisputably” OC. The leaf being held up to the light,
the point of an instrument was brought by one of the Librarians of the British
Museum ‘‘so near to the extremity of the sagitta of the € as to make a point of

4δ4 APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS

seems no reason to demur to it), that OC—which is adopted by
Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Davidson, Tregelles, Alford,
Ellicott, Wordsworth—was read in δὲ as early as the fourth
century.

The secondary witnesses, versions and Fathers, also power-
fully incline this way, and they deserve peculiar attention in a
case like the present. The Peshito(2) and Philoxenian (text and
ΟΟῚ in margin) Syriac have a relative (whether ds or δ); so have
the Armenian, the Roman Authiopic and Erpenius’ Arabic. The
Gothic, Thebaic, Memphitic, and Platt’s Athiopic favour ὃς:
all Latin versions (even fg. whose Greek is OC) read “ quod,”
while θεὸς appears only in the Slavonic (which usually resembles
KL and the later copies) and the Polyglott Arabic. Of ecclesi-

shade visible to the observer on the other side:” so that ‘‘ when the point of the
instrument was drawn over the sagitta of the €, the point of shade was seen
to exactly trace out the suspected diameter of the O.” This might seem indeed a
very satisfactory experiment, and would no doubt have been the more so, but
for one not trifling drawback. So very delicate is the operation, that out of
two such experiments which have recently been tried, the result of the one
was what the Dean describes, that of the other being to make the sagitta
of € cut the O indeed, as Tregelles mentions; but cut it too high to have been
reasonably mistaken by a careful observer for the diameter of 9. This last state
of things corresponds precisely with my own experience. On holding the leaf up to
the light one singularly bright hour, February 7, 1861, and gazing at it, with
and without a lens, with eyes which have something of the power and too many
of the defects of a microscope, I saw clearly the tongue of the € through the
attenuated vellum, crossing the circle about two-thirds up (much above the
thick modern line), the knob at its extremity falling without the circle. On
laying down the leaf, I saw immediately after (but not at the same moment) the
slight shadow of the real ancient diameter, only just above the recent one. Even
had this last faint line not been seen, Mr Cowper would be right in saying that
““ΠῊΘ mere absence or invisibility of the cross line of the theta would not of itself
be demonstrative, because it has disappeared in a number of cases about which no
question ever has been or ever will be raised” (Cod. Alexand. Introd. p. xviii).

But one word more. <A learned man once suggested to me that the upper
horizontal line, made by a recent hand, was too thin to cover as it now seems to
do all vestiges of such older lines of abridgement as that over OC on the same
page (ch. iv. 3); furnished, as these lines are, with thick knobs at both ends,
Our reply would be (1) that in Mill’s time (vid. supra) the whole or part of the
original upper line (now quite obliterated) was visible to that critic, and (2) that
though in the particular instance of ch. iv. 3, and many others, the horizontal line
has a bold knob at both ends, in a yet greater number of places the knob is but at
one end, or very small, sometimes indeed evanescent, so that to be quite undistin-
guishable from a portion of a simple straight line, or even to degenerate into
two or more points (e.g. OT, iv. 4), which might easily be covered by the recent
line now set above OC or OC.

TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 455

astical writers the best witness for the Received text is Ignatius,
Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένου (Ephes. 19), both in the Greek
and old Latin, although the Syriac abbreviator seems to have
τοῦ υἱοῦ: the later interpolator expanded the clause thus:
θεοῦ ὡς ἀνθρώπου φαινομένου, καὶ ἀνθρώπου ὡς θεοῦ ἐνεργοῦν-
τος. Hippolytus (Adv. Noet. 17) makes a “free reference’’ to
it in the words Οὗτος προελθὼν εἰς κόσμον θεὸς ἐν σώματι
ἐφανέρωθη : the testimony of Dionysius of Alexandria (265) can
no longer be upheld (Tregelles, Horne, Iv. p. 339), that of Chry-
sostom to the same effect is very precarious, since his manuscripts
fluctuate, and Cramer’s Catena on 1 Tim. p. 31 is adverse; but
that of later writers, Theodoret, John Damascene, Theophylact,
Oecumenius (as might be looked for) is clear and express. The
chief Latins, Hilary, Jerome, Augustine, &c. exhibit either
qui or quod: Cyril of Alexandria (for so we must conclude both
from manuscripts and his context), Epiphanius (¢wice), Theodore
of Mopsuestia (in Latin), and others of less weight, or whose lan-
guage is less direct, are cited in critical editions of the N.T. in
support of a relative; add to which that θεὸς is not quoted by
Fathers (e.g. “Cyprian, p. 35,” Bentledi Crit. Sacra, p. 67) ἴῃ
many places where it might fairly be looked for; though this
argument must not be pushed too far. The idle tale, propagated.
by Liberatus the Deacon of Carthage, and from him repeated
by Hinemar and Victor, that Macedonius Patriarch of Constan-
tinople (A.D. 506) was expelled by the Emperor Anastasius for
corrupting O or OC into ΘΟ, although lightly credited by Dr
Tregelles (Account of Printed Teat, p. 229), is sufficiently refuted
by Bp. Pearson (On the Creed, Art. 11. p. 128, 3rd edition).

On a review of the whole mass of external proof, bearing in
mind too that OC (from which 6 of D* is an evident corruption) is
grammatically much the harder reading after μυστήριον (p. 371),
and that it might easily pass into ΘΟ, we must consider it highly
probable (indeed, if we were sure of the testimony of the first-
rate uncials, we might regard it as certain) that the second of
our rules of Comparative Criticism must here be applied (see
p. 408), and θεὸς of the more recent many yield place to ὃς of
the ancient few.

1 Benileit, Critica Sacra, p. 67, ““Σχόλια Photii MSS, (Bib. Pub. Cant.) ad loc.
ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις Κύριλλος ἐν τῷ ιβ κεφαλαίῳ τῶν σχολίων φησίν. ds ἐφανερώθη ἐν capi.”
Photius also quoted Gregory Thaumaturgus (or Apollinaris) for θεύς,

450 APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS

(21). 1 Per. i. 23. Here we have a remarkable example to
illustrate what we saw in the cases of Rom. viii. 20 (p. 418) ;
2 Cor. iii. 3 (p. 377); Phil. ii. 1 (p. 449), that the chief uncials
sometimes conspire in readings which are unquestionably false,
and can hardly have arisen independently of each other. For
σπορᾶς φθαρτῆς Codd. NAC have φθορᾶς φθαρτῆς, the scribe’s
eye wandering in writing σπορᾶς to the beginning of the next
word. When Mill records the variation for Cod. A, he adds
(as well he might), ‘“dormitante scriba:” that the same
gross error should be found in three out of the four oldest
codices, and in no other, is very suggestive and not a little per-
plexing.

(22). 1 Per. Π|. 1ὅ. κύριον δὲ τὸν θεὸν ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς
καρδίαις ὑμῶν. For θεὸν we find χριστὸν (a change of con-
siderable doctrinal importance) in ABC, Scrivener’s ac (two of
the best he met with), 7. 8 (Stephens’ ca), 13. 33 (margin). 69,
137. Apost. 1 (w χν ἡμῶν) with its Arabie translation. Thus
too read both Syriac versions, the Thebaic, Memphitic, Arme-
nian, Erpenius’ Arabic, Vulgate, Clement of Alexandria, Fulgen-
tius and Bede. Jerome has “ Jesum Christum:” the /®thiopic
and one other (Auctor de Promiss., 4th century) omit both words:
we do not yet know the evidence of &. Against this very strong
case we can only set up for the common text the more recent un-
cials GK (only six contain this Epistle), the mass of later cursives
(ten out of Scrivener’s twelve), the Polyglott Arabic, Slavonic,
Theophylact and Oecumenius, authorities of the ninth century
and downwards. It is a real pleasure to me in this instance to
express my cordial agreement with Tregelles, when he says,
“Thus the reading χριστὸν may be relied on confidently” (Ac-
count of Printed Text, p. 235). I would further allege this text
as one out of many proofs that the great uncials seldom or never
conspire in exhibiting a really valuable departure from the later
codices, unless supported by some of the best of the cursives
themselves (see above, pp. 404, 407).

(23). 1 Joun ii. 23. The English reader will have observed
that the latter clause of this verse, “but he that acknowledgeth the
Son hath the Father also,” is printed in italics in our Authorised
version, this being the only instance in which variety of reading

—

TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 457

is thus denoted by the translators, who derived both the words
and this method of indicating their doubtful authenticity from
the “Great Bible” of 1539. The corresponding Greek ὁ ὁμολο-
γῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει (which scems to have been lost
from some copies by ὁμοιοτέλευτον, sce p. 9), was first inserted
in Beza’s Greek Testament of 15821, and is approved by all
modern editors (Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, &c.),
and though still absent from the tewtus receptus, is pretty
surely genuine. This is just such a point as versions are best
capable of attesting. The “Great Bible” had no doubt taken
the clause from the Latin Vulgate, in whose printed editions and
best manuscripts it is found (e. g. in am. fuld. demid. tol. but not
in harl.), as also in both Syriac, both Egyptian, the Armenian,
AKthiopic and (were it worth anything) Erpenius’ (not the
Polyglott) Arabic version. Of manuscripts the great uncials
ABC contain the clause, the later GK omit it. Of the cursives
only two of Scrivener’s (aj) have it, and another (Ὁ) secundé
manu. from nine or ten of them it is absent: but of the other
cursives it is present in at least thirty, whereof 3. 5. 13. 66#*
(marg.). 68. 69. 98 are valuable. It is also acknowledged by
Clement, Origen (thrice), Athanasius, both Cyrils, Theophylact
and the Western Iathers. Euthalius and one or two others have
ὁμολογεῖ for the final ἔχει: the Old Latin m, Cyprian and
Hilary repeat τὸν υἱὸν καὶ before τὸν πατέρα ἔχει. The critical
skill of Beza must not be estimated very highly (see p. 302), yet
in this instance he might well have been imitated by the Elzevir
editors.

(24). 1 Joun v. 7,8. Ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [ἐν
τῷ οὐρανῷ, 6 Ἰ]ατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ “Αγιον Τ]νεῦμα' καὶ οὗτοι
οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσὶ. καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ], τὸ
πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα: καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.

The authenticity of the words within brackets will, perhaps,
no longer be maintained by any one whose judgment ought to
have weight; but this result has been arrived at after a long and
memorable controversy, which helped to keep alive, especially
in England, some interest in Biblical studies, and led to investi-

1 “Restitui in Grecis hoc membrum ex quatuor manuscr. codicum, veteris
>
Latini et Syri interpretis auctoritate. sic etiam assueto Johanne istis oppositionibus
contrariorum uti quam saepissime.” Beza, V. 7. 1582.

458 APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS

gations into collateral points of the highest importance, such as
the sources of the Received text, the manuscripts employed by
R. Stephens (see pp. 299—301), the origin and value of the Vele-
sian readings (see p. 156), &c. <A critical résumé of the whole
discussion might be profitably undertaken by some competent
scholar; we can at present touch only upon the chief heads of
this great debate!.

The two verses appear in the early editions (adopting again
the notation employed above, p. 301), with the following notable
variations from the common text: v. 7—€v τῷ οὐρανῷ usque ad
τῇ yn Vv. 8, Er. 1, 2.— ὁ prim. et secund. Er. 3 [non C. Er. 4, 5].
+xat (post πατήρ) Ο.-- τὸ Er. 3. τὸ καὶ ἅγιον πνεῦμα St. 1.
πνεῦμα ἅγιον Ey. 8, 4, ὅ.--- οὗτοι C. + εἰς το (ante ev) C. ν. 8. επί
ts γης Ὁ. -- τὸ ter Er. 3, 4, 5 [habent C. Er 1, 21. -- καὶ οἱ τρεῖς
ad fin. vers. C. They are found, including the clause from ἐν τῷ
οὐρανῷ to ἐν τῇ γῇ, in no more than three Greek manuscripts of
very late date, one of them (Cod. Ravianus, Evan. 110), being a
mere worthless copy from printed books; and in the margin of a
fourth, in a hand as late as the sixteenth century. ‘The real
witnesses are the Codex Montfortianus, Evan. 61, Act. 34, whose
history was described p. 149; Cod. Vat.-Ottob. 298 (Act. 162, see
p- 196 and note), and for the margin a Naples manuscript (Act.
173, p. 197). On comparing these slight and scanty authorities
with the Received text we find that they present the following
variations :—vy. 7. ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (pro ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ) 102. -- ὃ
prim. et secund. 84. 162. -- τὸ 84. 162. ava ὥγιον 84. 162. -- οὗτοι
162. + εἰς τὸ (ante ἕν) 162. ν. 8. εἰσι 173 marg. ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς 162.
— τὸ ter 84. -- καὶ (post πνα) 34. 162. -- καὶ οἱ τρεῖς ad fin. vers. 34.
162. fin. εἰσι 173. No printed edition, therefore, is found to
agree with either 34 or 162 (173, whose margin is so very recent,
only differs from the common text by dropping ν ἐφελκυστικὸν),

1 Horne (Introduction, Vol. 11. Pt. τι. ch. 111. Sect. 4), and after his example
Tregelles (J/orne, Iv. pp. 384—S8) give a curious list of more than fifty volumes,
pamphlets, or critical notices on this question. The following are the most worthy
of perusal: Letters to Edward Gibbon, Esq. by G. Travis, Archdeacon of Chester,
1785, 2nd edit.: Letters to Mr Archdeacon Travis, &c. by Richard Porson, 1790:
Letters to Mr Archdeacon Travis, ἕο. by Herbert Marsh [afterwards Bp. of
Peterborough] 1795: A Vindication of the Literary Character of Professor Porson,
by Crito Cantabrigiensis [Thomas Turton, now Bp. of Ely] 1827: Z'wo Letters on
some purts of the Controversy concerning τ John y. 7, by Nicholas Wiseman, 1835;
for which sce p. 245.

TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 459

though on the whole 162 best suits the Complutensian : but the
omission of the article in v. 7, while it stands in v. 8 in 162,
proves that the disputed clause was interpolated (probably from
its parallel Latin) by one who was very ill acquainted with
Greek.

The controverted words are not met with in any of the extant
uncials (SA BGK) orin any cursives beside those named above}:
the cursives that omit them are found by the careful calculation
of the Rev. A. W. Grafton, Dean Alford’s Secretary (NV. 7. αὐ loc.),
to amount to 188 in all, besides some sixty Lectionaries. The
aspect of things is not materially altered when we consult the ver-
sions. The disputed clause is not in any manuscript of the Peshito,
nor in the best editions (e.g. Lee’s: but see p. 233) : the Philoxe-
nian, ‘hebaic, Memphitic, Aithiopic, Arabic do not contain it in
any shape: scarcely any Armenian codex has it (see p. 277), and
only a few recent Slavonic copies, the margin of a Moscow edi-
tion of 1663 being the first to represent it. The Latin versions,
therefore, alone lend it any support, and even these are much
divided. The chief and oldest authority in its favour is Wise-
man’s Speculum m (see p. 258) of the earlier translation; it is
found in the printed Latin Vulgate, and in most of its manu-
scripts, but not in the best, such as am., fuld. (see p. 264); nor
in Alcuin’s reputed copies at Rome ( primé manu) and London (see
p- 262), the book of Armagh (p. 266, note 1), and full fifty others.
In one of the most ancient which contain it, cav. (see p. 265), v. 8
precedes v. 7 (as appears also in m., tol., demid., and a codex
[virt.] cited by Lachmann), while in the margin is written
“qudiat hoc Arius et caetert,” as if its authenticity was un-
questioned. In general there is very considerable variety of
reading (always a suspicious circumstance, see p. 443), and
often the doubtful words stand only in the margin: the last
clause of v. 8 (et he tres unum sunt) especially is frequently left
out when the ‘“ Heavenly witnesses’ are retained. It is to

1 Tt is really surprising how loosely persons who cannot help being scholars,
at least in some degree, will talk about codices containing this clause. Dr Edward
Tatham, Rector of Lincoln College, Oxford (1792—1834), writing in 1827, speaks
of a manuscript in his College Library which exhibited it, but is now missing, as
having been once seen by him and Dr Parsons, Bishop of Peterborough (Crito
Cantabrigiensis, p. 334, note). Yet there can be no question that he meant Act.
33, which does not give the verse, but has long been known to have some con-
nexion with the Codex Montfortianus, which does (sce p. 189).

400 APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS

defend this omission by the opinion of Thomas Aquinas, not to
account for the reception of the doubtful words, that the Com-
plutensian editors wrote their long note, reprinted above, p. 363.
We conclude, therefore, that the passage from ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ
to ἐν τῇ γῇ had no place in ancient Greek manuscripts, but
came into some of the Latin at least as early as the sixth
century.

The Patristic testimony in its favour, though quite insuf-
ficient to establish the genuineness of the clause, is entitled to
more consideration. Of the Greek Fathers no one has cited
it, even when it might be supposed to be most required by
his argument, or though he quotes consecutively the verses
going immediately before and after it. The same must be said
of the great Latins, Hilary, Lucifer, Ambrose, Jerome’ and Au-
gustine, with others of less note. On the other hand the Afri-
can writers, Vigilius of Thapsus, at the end of the fifth century,
and Fulgentius of Ruspae (? fl. 520) in two places, expressly
appeal to the “three Heavenly Witnesses” as a genuine portion
of St John’s Epistle; nor is there much reason to doubt the
testimony of Victor Vitensis, who records that the passage was
insisted on in a confession of faith drawn up by Eugenius Bishop
of Carthage at the end of the fifth century, and presented to
the Arian Hunneric, king of the Vandals. From that time the
clause became well known in other regions of the West, and was
in time generally accepted throughout the Latin Church.

But a stand has been made by the maintainers of this pas-
sage on the evidence of two African Fathers of a very different
stamp from those hitherto named, Tertullian and Cyprian. If it
could be proved that these writers cited or alluded to the passage,
it would result—not by any means that it is authentic—but that
like Act. viii. 37 (see pp. 387, 444) and a few other like interpo-
lations, it was known and received in some places, as early
as the second or third century. Now as regards the language
of Tertullian (which will be found in Tischendorf’s and the
other critical editions of the N. T.: advers. Prax. 25; de
Pudic. 21), it must be admitted that Bp. Kaye’s view is the
most reasonable, that “far from containing an allusion to

’

1 The ‘‘Prologus Galeatus in vit Epistolas Canonicas,” in which the author
complains of the omission of v. 7, ‘‘ ab infidelibus translatoribus,” is certainly not

Jerome's, and begins to appear in codices of about the ninth century,

TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 461

1 Jo. v. 7, it furnishes most decisive proof that he knew
nothing of the verse’ (Writings of Tertullian, p. 550, 2nd
edition) ; but I cannot thus dispose of his junior Cyprian (d.
258). I must say with Tischendorf (who, however, manages
to explain away his testimony) “‘gravissimus est Cyprianus de
eccles. unitate ὅ. His words run, “ Dicit dominus, Ego et pater
unum sumus (Joh. x. 30), et iterum de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu
Sancto scriptum est, Lt tres unum sunt.” And yet further in his
Epistle to Jubaianus (73) on heretical baptism: “Si baptizari
quis apud haereticos potuit, utique et remissam peccatorum con-
sequi potuit,—si peccatorum remissam consecutus est, et sancti-
ficatus est, et templum Dei factus est, quaero cujus Dei? Si
Creatoris, non potuit, qui in eum non credidit; si Christi, nee
hujus fieri potuit templum, qui negat Deum Christum; si Spi-
ritus Sancti, cum tres unum sunt, quomodo Spiritus Sanctus
placatus esse οἱ potest, qui aut Patris aut Filii inimicus est?”
If these two passages be taken together (the first is much the
stronger’), it is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cy-
prian read v. 7 in his copies, than to resort to the explanation
of Facundus [v1], that the holy Bishop was merely putting on
v. 8 a spiritual meaning; although we must acknowledge that
it was in this way v. 7 obtained a place, first in the margin,
then in the text of the Latin copies, and though we have
clear examples of the like mystical interpretation in Euche-
rius (fl. 440) and Augustine (contra Maximin. 22), who only
knew of v. 8.

Stunica, the chief Complutensian editor, by declaring, in
controversy with Erasmus, with reference to this very passage,
“Sciendum est, Graecorum codices esse corruptos, nostros [1.e.
Latinos] verd ipsam veritatem continere,” virtually admits that
v. 7 was translated in that edition from the Latin, not derived
from Greek sources. The versions (for such we must call
them) in Cod. 34. 162 had no doubt the same origin, but were
somewhat worse rendered: the margin of 173 seems to be taken
from a printed book. Erasmus, after excluding the passage

1 The writer of a manuscript note in the British Museum copy of Travis’ Letters
to Gibbon, 1785, p. 49, very well observes on the second citation from Cyprian:
“That three are one might be taken from the eighth verse, as that was certainly
understood of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, especially when Baptism was the
subject in hand” [Matth. xxviii. 19].

402 APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS

from his first two editions, inserted it in his third under cireum-
stances we have before mentioned (pp. 149, 297); and notwith-
standing the discrepancy of reading in v. 8, there can be little or
no doubt of the identity of his “ Codex Britannicus” with Mont-
fort’s. We have detailed (p. 458) the steps by which the text
was brought into its present shape, wherein it long remained, un-
challenged by all save a few such bold spirits as Bentley,
defended even by Mill, implicitly trusted in by those who had
no knowledge of Biblical criticism. It was questioned in
fair argument by Wetstein, assailed by Gibbon in 1781 with
his usual weapons, sarcasm and insinuation (Decline and Fall,
Chap. xxxvu). Archdeacon Travis, who came to the rescue,
a person “ of some talent and attainments” (Crito Cantab. p.335,
note), burdened as he was with a weak cause and undue con-
fidence in its goodness, would have been at any rate—impar
congressus Achilli—no match at all for the exact learning, the
acumen, the wit, the overbearing scorn of Porson’. The
Letters of that prince of scholars, and the contemporaneous
researches of Herbert Marsh, have completely decided the con-
test: Bp. Burgess alone, while yet among us [d. 1837], clung
obstinately to a few scattered outposts after the main field of
battle had been lost beyond recovery.

On the whole, therefore, we need not hesitate to declare our
conviction that the disputed words were not written by St John:
that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa
from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and
orthodox gloss on v. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two

1 Τ side with Porson against Travis on every important point at issue between
them, and yet I must say that if the former lost a legacy (as has been reported) by
publishing his “ Zetters,” he was entitled to but slender sympathy. The prejudices
of good men (especially when a passage is concerned which they have long held to
be a genuine portion of Scripture, clearly teaching pure and right doctrine) should
be dealt with gently: not that the truth should be dissembled or withheld, but
when told it ought to be in a spirit of tenderness and love. Now take one exam-
ple out of fifty of the tone and temper of Porson. The question was a very sub-
ordinate one in the controversy, the evidence borne by the Acts of the Lateran
Council, A.D. 1215. ‘Though this,” rejoins Porson, ‘“ proves nothing in favour of
the verse, it proves two other points. That the clergy then exercised dominion
over the rights of mankind, and that able tithe-lawyers often make sorry critics.
Which I desire some certain gentlemen of my acquaintance to lay up in their hearts
as a very seasonable innuendo” (Letters, p. 361). As if it were a disgrace for an Arch-
deacon to know a little about the laws which affect his clergy.

TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 463

or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek
text, a place to which they had no rightful claim. We will
close this slight review with the terse and measured judgment of
Griesbach on the subject: “Si tam pauci, dubii, suspecti, re-
centes testes, et argumenta tam levwia, sufficerent ad demon-
strandam lectionis cujusdam γνησιότητα, licet obstent tam multa
tamque gravia, et testimonia et argumenta: nullum prorsus
superesset in re critica veri falsique criterium, et textus Novi
Testamenti universus plane incertus esset atque dubius” (N. T. ad
locum, Vol. 11. p. 709).

(25). Apoc. xii. 10. Ei τις αἰχμαλωσίαν συνάγει, εἰς aiy-
μαλωσίαν ὑπάγει. This reading of the received text is per-
fectly clear; indeed, when compared with what is found in the
best manuscripts, it is too simple to be true (Canon 1. p. 371).
From a communication made by Tischendorf to Mr Kelly
(Revelation of John, Introd. p. xv.) we know that Cod. δὲ agrees
in substance with BC: e (nC) τις εἰς avyparwovav υπαγει
(ὑπάγῃ B Maz), the reading of those excellent cursives 28. 38.
95, anda manuscript of Andreas: εἰς is further omitted in 14 (ὁ).
32. 47. the Memphitic (?), Arabic (Polyglott), and a Slavonic
manuscript. The sense of this reading, if admissible at all,
is very harsh and elliptical: that of the only remaining uncial
A, though apparently unsupported except by a Slavonic manu-
script and the best copies of the Vulgate, looks more probable:
el τις εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν, εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει: “if any one
ts for captivity, into captivity he goeth” (TZvregelles, Kelly,
who compares Jerem. xv. 2, LXX): the second εἰς αἰχμα-
λωσίαν being omitted by homoeoteleuton (see p. 9) in the above-
mentioned codices. Tregelles, Lachmann, Tischendorf and Kelly
follow Cod. A, and it would seem rightly.

All other variations were devised for the purpose of supply-
ing the ellipsis left in the uncials. For συνάγει of the common
text (now that it is known not to be found in C) no Greek
authority is expressly cited except the recent margin of 94 (b*").
The favourite form of the cursives is that printed in the Complu-
tensian Polyglott: εἴ τις ἔχει αἰχμαλωσίαν, ὑπάγει, after 2.
8. 13. 29. 80. 31. 37. 40. 41. 42. 48. 49. 50. 90. 98. 945, 96. 97.
98, perhaps some six others, a Slavonic manuscript, Andreas
in the edition of 1596. The Vulgate, the Pseudo-Peshito Syriac
(see p. 233), and Primasius in substance, read “Qui in captivi-

464 APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING MATERIALS, &e.

tatem duxerit, in captivitatem vadet,” but am. fuld. (not demid.)
and the best codices omit ‘“duxerit’” and have “‘vadit’ (Syr.

Wy)...ASda%), which brings the clause into accordance with

Cod. A. ‘The Greek corresponding with the printed Vulgate is
el τις εἰς (33 omits εἰς) αἰχμαλωσίαν (ἐς 87) ἀπάγει (ἐπάγει 87),
εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει, 33, 35, 87. Other modes of expression
(e.g. εἴ τις αἰχμαλωτίζει εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει, 7: εἴ τις
αἰχμαλωτιεῖ, αἰχμαλωτισθήσεται, 18: εἴ τις αἰχμαλώτης εἶ,
εἰς αἶχ. ὑπ. 36, &c.) resemble those already given in their
attempt to enlarge and soften what was originally abrupt and

perhaps obscure.

God grant that if these studies shall have made any of us
better instructed in the letter of His Holy Word; we may
find grace to grow, in like measure, in that knowledge which
tendeth to salvation, through faith in His mercy by Christ
Jesus.

INDICES.

*
INDEX 1.

Index of about 1170 separate Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament
described in Chapter τι, Sections τι, u1, tv, arranged according
to the countries wherein they are now deposited.

Denmark 3 MSS. ; England 250; France 238 ; Germany 90; Holland 6; Ireland Ste
Italy 320; Russia 73; Scotland 7; Spain 19; Sweden 1; Switzerland 14;

Turkey 104? Unknown 42 ?

N.B. van. means a manuscript of the Gospels ; Act. of the Acts and Catholic
Epistles ; Paul. of St Paul’s Epistles ; Apoc. of the Apocalypse ; Lvst. a Lec-

tionary of the Gospels ; Apost. a Lectionary of the Epistles.

When a manu-

script contains more than one portion of the N.T., the fact is always stated at
the place in the present volume, to which the reader is referred in this Index.

PAGE

Denmark (Copenhagen) 3.
Havyniensis I ......... Evan. 234 ...... 166
DO sia: Evan. 235 ...... 166
Bie λους Fivsterdd ποτες. 214

ENGLAND 250 MSS.
(British and Foreign Bible Soc.

london) seeders ....: Hivane anes. Suks 126
(Cambridge) 19 MSS.
University Library.
Dd S.:23-..ceuake ones Evst. 146 ...... 218
DAS AG. τονοντον, Biv ste το: 212
15 ce eee eee Evan. 60 ...... 149
DD) A GUT NOON 5. 1... «τον Cb a2 Twos cee 188
ΒΡ die ore nae eee aml 27. “----: 201
Eh, ΟΣ τ cons IEW τ, oe ον ππ τ τ: 181

HCE, 5. 35h ecteaks cane Evan. 62 ...... 150

PAGE
ἘΠ O. in oeta easter: ἈΘΈΟΥ os Sisto 187
TS σον BIS! ΣΟ ΣΕ ΞΕ αν Τα. 76... κεῖ 152
Iisa, (Oy 0.. 5... γ.--- Evan. 440...... 176
ING 28 Obs ete caeec sco Evan. 443...... 1ἢ

Nn. 2.41 (Cod. Bezae) Evan. D....96-103
Gonville and Caius College.

Codex 403) ᾿ς. Evan. 59 ...... 148
Christ’s College.

ἘΠῚ G) saeavere sereererae ΠΕΣ Ζ one cena «220
ἘΠῚ Te Ἔν: sane ING ips 200 ον νον: 188
Trinity College.

Ἔξ, 06... Sieve Evan. w*, ...180
Bihcxs ὙΠ SERS cease IRIVaiS Bla nse cone 179

B. xvii.1 (Cod. Augiens.) Paul, F...133-5

Emmanuel College.

400 INDEX I.

(Lambeth) 24 MSS. PAGE PAGE

ge GEO te ΤΣ ΤῊ Evan. 71...... 152 | Harleian 5588.......... Act. 5Q.ereeeees 19t

ee a cL Evan. a®", ...178 B5QS wccnen ens Evst. 150......218
EL O se oeeone Evan. b®, ...178 BONG a. «aa Pou. δυο 188
PUY step reetheess Evan. c®, ...178 Act. 60... ΘΙ
ΠΝ ν τ Evan. d®, ...178 Lo)": Ree Act, 27... οἶς οἷν 189
x uti, Ue Evan. e. ...179 RORY λους Evan, 72 ...... 152
gh ci ey a Evan. v®", ...180 5650 ...«...... Evst. 25, 25..213
1181? (or 1255) Act. e. ......199 BOWS cataescee ΑΡΟΟΘΤ πον 208
PLO ce re waco ἌΘΕΟΝ ae oe... 198 5684 -........ Evan. G, ...... 106
PEGS, ES AM Act... 198 a Evan. ταῦ ...158
ἜΝ ΠΡ ΠΝ Act. o%. ......198 5736 ....Ἀ κἀν: Evan. 445. ...176
TLE eee Act. d®, ......199 5776 .-....ὁἀνν Evan. 65 ....-.150
FARO. ΟΣ cn ts: Paul. e& 206 5777 5655 55: Evan, 446 ...τ76
1187,1188, 1189 Evst. ......... 223 iy τε τος Act) 28 ΡΣ. 189
LEGO, ΠΟΤ πος ἈΠΟΒΌΝ τς 225 5784 weeeesees Evan. 447 -...177
τοῦ ΔῸΣ Evan, f° 179 RUBE θέειν Eivat, 18 1...... 218
ὙΠΟ gabe: τ 25 223 5787 «ἀὉἀπλλλτον Evst. 152......219
1194,1195, 1196 Apost. -.-...... 225 5790 voenneree Evan. 448. ...177
oe Oe ee ΕἸ 8Ὲ Evan. t®", ...180 5 79Dissa 2.508 Evan. 444 ...276

King’s Library, IBI. Act. 20 ...... 188

(Leicester) ............ Evan. 69...... T5t | 4 aditional Marnier:

(Middle-Hill, Worcestershire) 4 MSS. ΕΟ Δ euch bs Evan. 44 .... 147
ἘΧΘῈΣ eed. ee Metro; eaves 197 | (1) 4950, 4Q51.......+ Evan. 449...... 177
GOSE Fi. .3 30S "ΟΣ chee Tog WOOF «teed ἀπο 15: Evan. 439 ...176

bs ami Hivans: ¢. cea 1810}. ἡ) δια ασϑεθονις: Evan. 438 ...176

Unknown 2, hve ὅϑ θυ; Bias. wo desevsGeg 221 | (1) 5115, 5116...Act. 22, Paul. 75...188

i B Tayi bee. haere oes Evan, 109 ...156

(Museum Brit. London) 75 MSS. rif Maras He Res. HIVE a «teas eteee 223

Arundel 524.......++++ Even Dy eR 7Os ΓΝ soso Pal. ἀρ Ὁ 207

530.-..66 κεν το Evst. ......... Boo A ΤΗ͂Ι, τς το πο τς Evan, k*, ...179

B47 oveceeeeeeee ἘΠΕ. 2%. “220! | x1 836° o.eeee rae ΑΝ ὙΠ 186

Burney 18. seeeeesevees Evan. Ὥς ...579 || θοῦ ica. eRe Evan. 201 ...163
10. sesseseee .-Evan. o%. ...179 | (2) 11838, 11839...... EVAN, iscesesne 186

WO svesenenais Evan. p™. ...179 | (2) 11840, 11841...... Bava. οἶον 223

BT ssvcesnensss Evan. 29% (4.280. || 54744) περι... Evan, 202...164, 186

24 ΟΝ Evst. γῆν 220 | (4)15581,16183, 16184, 16943 Evan. 186

48. idddeveewees Evan. a, κιϊαϑο | 17196) .ausise.-cnsanw Evan. ΝΡ, ...111

HB ssnsnscsates YA ae TOO |] ἌΑΙΣ Ace cath nace Evan. Ba sis: 114

Cotton, Vesp. B. xviii. Apost. 2 ...... MAS, ΒΡ τας Evan. (Apoe. j*".)...186
Titus O, xv... Evan. Ni... YEO—% ἢ LY4%O sesconnansncnnnnns Evan. .escosses 187
Harleian 1810......... BVAN. TIS XS Ta Val ἀπο 5. tee ivan. νυν την 180
MEA τ ony A Cb, 415... ,ἐὐὸνν 188 | (2) 17982, 18arr ....:. FOvVONS Werateess 187

τος cs tes Ἐν. » νεῖν LO7 1 (xSara Ae eee Ἐϊνδδν "Avy ences 223

BR AOU th eee, Elvan. 184+ seo 187 || OXOS87ssasvupanisenesees Ean, cccccenst 187

BEST dadvive ss PRL 66 .. {νον 200 1 KO988" asses. Paul. &c... Addenda, p. viii.

BS BY .0ν..0.. Act. .26....0000. 189 | 19389 .ccecccsecsescones Kivan. ...sssvs 187

BEBO νι νι, Evan, 115 ...157 | (2) 19460, 19993 ...... Twat. ΒΟ 223

158 | GOOOZS ascsedcssenscceves Act. lot ...... 198

BSO7 scecsiine Evan. 116 .

INDEX I. 467
PAGE PAGE
(Oxford) 103 MSS, Bodleian. Miscellan. 136.......+. Evan. 105......155
Agict. Laininanl 1.,.dwan. A. ...... 124 TAO Ae ccsmes Eivstitss sxpnebcpe 221
ΤΠ, 2.evan. Ls ......020 Wades 32: Πἰν Πρ... - 185
IBATOCE: ὅς 3,πξορεν savas: INGAM Se eerie 188:1}- Roe’, τς ΕΣ ΒΕ τος Evan. 40 ...... 147
2 Otic reece: Evan. 46 ...... 147 LOW a ccspaataepioceas ῬΑ, 47. «- ως: 201
ΠΥ ΎῚ Hiya 4 Sy. cence ib? WW WSyelloleval ie Gas Saas τυ στε Evst. 26. κεν ες 213
ΘΕ ΞΕ τι «τνες Apoce. 28 ...... 208 D resent ape cise Hivsb.) 247) κε τς 213
EXO} ΣΙ τος τος ΕἸΝ ΤΗΣ στ τς οὐ ἘΜ 184 δ ολου τος cb aac Evan. 55 ...... 148
᾿ς Δ cca Ἡϊνϑύ -...Ψ...Ὁ- 221 Aisne deters Eats 22%, .2ce2 213
20 Bice see. oss ἘΠΕ; δ᾽ τινος 212 AO ac epaat tepkbe ἘΠΗ͂ΡΕ soe 213
(WaNOniclwn θα .---.- Dilek τ τεῖος 184 BO eats ara ivan ΒΦ τ΄ 148
34 ...Hvan. (Apoc. k®™.) 184 BA ee teeta tek στῶν iva) 54) “ποτ 148
C1 a ee Hvan. ......... 184 | New College 58......... Nicb. Sia sense 189
(2) Se O OA aac: IDEN Ὁ -ἰ.- ες: 221 FOR scans IND, 97 τ 180
TO Ὑ....:ς ONC batten tite ΤῊΣ 199 ΒΞ :.:..:ς νᾶ. 59.-.-.- 148
a Tae eee ἜΣ ΘΠ ας Seaecnoee 184 | Lincoln College 15 ...Hvst. 3......... 212
oh οἷ. ἐν ΝΕ ΡΠ Ὸ 221 ͵ $0. - PVA: ΟΡ. 2555 154.
ΠΡ ἘΠ aan sn 184 17 ...Juvan. 68. :..... 151
T 20 iets ses IBV Gs wc ceces= 221 α Steve lows Oneaeeee 148
KD. Clarke, 4 .....- Accbic5 Ou s.dost- Ig Sate GAGs 55 Ἐς 189
ieee Evan. 98 ...... 155 | Magdalen Coll. 7...... Raul 4 eee 201
ON eee Evan. 107 155 τος ἐς Byam. 57 «2... 148
Bias Evan, 111 ...156 | Christ Church, Wake
8... πῆς Hivsts, 157.0... 219 TO) ca sat doatae eet ce cet (Apoe. 26, &c.) 182
QD) assdd PACU ay Ones te nos ΤΟΥΤῚ | (7) 13, 14,15, 16, 17, 18, 19... Hivst....222
TO enc val. LEZ. 150) || 20 ει Εν Evan. 74 ...... 152
(4) 45» 46, 47, 48 ...... Εἰνεὺς ---- 228 1 {2} 21. Dyes ene iD Gaile μος ώροιος 182
Cromwell 11............ Evst. 30 ...... Ce Al Be) Rane, eee oe Se ἘΠΕ eee 222
(2) wisp LO wet... a2 Evan. ......... ESAs |e 2)) Digg ΒΕ Ἐπ; τι οι Bivany τοτς ὁ το τς 182
Oy) τὸς Ἔξ ας se Eival..2..-........ 220) 2 6΄΄,.- νὰν scbisscet κόρον, Evan. 73 ...--- 152
Mba! “by vecdee πον οτος Hiyan. 52 ......- 148 | (6) 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,32 Evan. ......... 183
Bl ke eee cena == Evan. 51...... TATE RS6coeve ante pha poeeene nes Apost. 58...... 225
32. seeseeereereees Evst. 18 ...... 212) [1 BU ods ότι Evan., Act. 190...183, 198
BOY ἐς τ ὐτεδος τος Evan. 50...... ΤᾺ 7} MESO. 01: «abide ΕΙΣ νος τὰ Bivanle ἐπ το ξ ες 183
34. -5Ὁπτλτλτλτετον Evst. 20 ...... τ 9 Act. 192 ...... 198
35. «τοττλληττλντον Act. E...... T2S-QP ὙΠ... Sider crktaciainnesans Met. TOL «τ 198
36 revseereereeeee Vid. P. 212, NOLE | (2) 39, 4O .reeeeereceeees BIVANG ccs 183
Miscellan. 1.....-... Evan. 48 ...... 147
1 ον. δ Evan, ODP...... 112 | (Parham Park, Sussex) 17 MSS.
Bees sees Evan. 96 ......154 | Vellum τ ........e Evst. P.®. ...220
Qenvcee ees Evan. 47 ...... 147 | (8)6,7,8) 9, 10, 11,12, 13...Evan....182
10.«ὐτεσσον Eyst. 19 ...... 212) Wika) ra το, MOM τι, Ὁ ἈΝ ΝΠ ΝΕ 199
11 ..sse000 Evst, 28 ...... CE sy ρα Ree = ROR IA DOG., OF seer 210
12... τ λτετον Evst. 29 ...... ENS TEI Sai OREG acme naa te ce De Bivste bs. 32-220
ἌΣ Evan, 118...... TRS MG) το GO. ccrtaacee es Ἤν εῦ τ τητος 223
eo Evans! τον Ἐπὶ Sari ΡΟ ΡΟΣ. τ τ 5: Αροο. 96 ...... 210
ἤῤισου ἀροδε IA Cha 20. 0: 180 Ν
ΠΟ. Ἐς τριὰς Evan. 67.....- 151 | (Sion College, London) 4 MSS.
DLS: stasssies ING ΣΡ ΡΟΣ. 199 | Fragment of the Gospels............... 187
ΠΟ ἬΕΙ. πὴ 221 | Ari,I. 1,.Ατ|.1. 2, Ari. 1. 4....Evst....222

30—2

408 INDEX I.

PAGE “PAGE
Winchelsea, Earl of... Evan. 106......155 Reg. 75a ...Evan. 271 ...168
Wordsworth, Canon..Evan. I*....... 179 160.46.0. Evan. 272 ...168
ii fee Evan. 23 «2.00. 145

FRANCE, 238 MSS. ΝΒ, εν δ, Evan. 26 ......145

oot SE ee as i a 181 79--++-Evan, 273 ...168
BenaN CON το Sescqee eee tS eS 223 79a :..Evan. 274 ...168
Carpentras ...... Evst. carp®’....181, 220 8o......Evan. 275 ...168
BXsscsse Evan. 276 ...168

(Paris) Royal or Imperial Library. Sra ...Evan. 277 ...168
Reg. (RI Tischendorf.) 9 Cod. C. 94-96 82: ;:::: Evan, 278 ...168
Nay iat Evan. 33 .....- 145 85.ν.::: Evan. Q.......0+ 143

ΠΟΤΈΣ ΣΙ Apoc. 58 ...... 209 Θά εις ἧς ἘΣ ἈΠ. Ae secseces 143

2a: .:.Hivst. 84 ...... 216 ΘΠ ετουδο Evan. I19...... 158

33a':;:Eivat. 85 ...... 216 86...... Evan. 279..... 168

δ γε: ἐς ον 1. 8.....οςς 144 | Pe Evan. 280 ...169

48......Evan. M. rog-110 88......Evan. 281 ...169

AOret oe. VAN: 8......ψ...ὅ 143 SOicasst Evan. 20 ...... 145

Ho wanae Evan. 13 .....- 144 90:54 Evan, 282 ...169

BOA. Ηρ πΘ.. τὸ 215 OR aie: Evan. 1ὸ ...... 143

BU sass Evan, 260 ...168 92......Hvan. 283 -...169

Sy Bete Evan. 261 ...168 Ὁ. 2: Evan. 284 ...169

Se eae Evan. 262 ...168 (0 I Hiyan. 81. csace 145

Fetes Evan. 16 ...... 144 aR Evan. 285. ...169

ΒΒ... ὁοςς AVA 17....ἢος 144 06......Evan, 286 ...169

ΒΟΌΣ Ach Baal. £2. 190 98...... Evan. 287 ...169

Ἐ γικένει ACh, DES ἐν τῦτὴν 104 99......Evan. 288 ..169

5.8... Ach. DIST. a. 194 99% ...Apoc. 59 ...... 209

BOixexss Acct, εὔαδεν... 104 16Ό....ν- Evan. 30 ...... 145

᾿ CO mw Ack. 6215, τι ΤΟΙ too 8}... Evan, 289 ...160
ὅτ...... Evan. 263. ...168 also rooal...Eyst. 59 ...... 215

ΟἿΣ: Evan. L. ...108-9 TOE sik. Act. 418 ΡΣ 104

653:..... Evan. Κι....τογ-8 102..:... Ab: Ἐκ κι ταΣ 187

δήμου Evan: 15 ...... 144 102. a ...Acte 119 ...... 104

[sae Evan. 264 ...168 τ63:::::: Act: It'S... 187

6ῦ...... Evan. 265. ...168 103 a°..,Act, 120 ...... 194

67......Evan. 266 ...168 104:3::.;ACbs TAT Aoase 104

OB areas Evan. 21 ...... 144 104@ ..:Apost, II...... 223

θ0.....»: Evan. 267 ...168 YO6 :0cc3 Act. 142 ...... 104

ΠΌΣΗΣ ἜΠΗ ΤῊ. [44 100...... Evan. 5 icssce 143

Wines Evan. 7 «02... 143 106:a:. Act. 123° «εν. 195

“4.1 «δὶ Hvan, 22... «ἃ, 144 ΤΟΥ: ἐὲς Paul. D. 130-132

U8 saadue Evan. 268 ...168 108.::... Paul. τὰν 204

74......Kvan. 269 ...168 to8a...Evan, 290 ...169

aa Evan. 270 ...168 109......Paul. 146...... 204

1 Codd. 100 a, 194 a, 303, 315, 377 are in Scholz’s lists both of the Gospels and Evangelistaria,
though he does not state, as he ought, that the same copy contains both. Codd. 100 A, 194 4, 377
are undoubtedly the same volumes in both lists, as it is probable that Cod, 303 is also, though in
the Gospels he calls it 4°, in the Evst. folio. In the case of Cod. 315 there is perhaps some error,
since Scholz puts it in his list for the Gospels as new, though it was known long ago as Evst. 14.
Codd. 380, 381 also seem to contain both Evan. and Evst,

INDEX I. 469

PAGE PAGE

Reg. f10!).... Pauly, Τὰς. aes 204 Regs 188....» Mele Ἐ281..... 195
TT ei Paul. 148...... 204 ΤΡ τε ἌΤΟΟΣ Ὑ 2 τ κι υ τος 188
Rie, 262 Fvan. 6) «<:.... 143 2208. vey Ain DZ «ον τος 195
HO aera Evan. 201 ...169 Pe sao Act 130) ces. 195
ἀπ... Evan, 202 ...169 CPN See Pawleys yess 204
EMG 228 Evan. 27 ...... 145 DOO van Atcts 13s scc55 195
115 a...Evst. 96 ...... 216 204s ἘΠ] ΠΡΟ τς 204
τ ἢ Evan. 32 ...... 145 BOR Ect Paul! 1669... 204
1h ee Evan. 203 ...169 2262 500i Paul, 161. s.< 204
ταιδις ἐς: Evan. 204 ...169 OT ia: Paul. 62... 204
118a...Evan, 323 ...170 230......Evan. 12 ...... 144
120..,...Hvan. 295 ...169 DEER in Evan. 319 ...170
(1) 127, ΣΉ" Evan. II ...... 143 2525. Evan. 320° ...170
TOE RA 3:8 Evan. 296 ...169 BBY Ss sia INCESIO! τος 187
TOA Se, ING ey. Benne 195 BBR ne. Paul) 169).....- 204
LI aaa Veli wg 4) eee 195 89; θα. Ὁ Apoc. 62 ...... 209
120s Pauly Us ΤΥ ΤῸ ὁ 204 DAT sca. Apoe. 63 ...... 209
13 Gale. bau). ΤΕ 55: 204 ΣΙ ΘΝ. .:- Evst. 82 ...... 216
140a...Evan. 297 ...169 DT as ἙΧΗΡ ὅδ᾽...- 215
175a...Hvan. 208 ...169 7,95... Ἐπ Υ τ τ πο: 212
217 /cOgeee Evan. 299 ...169 WQS sta BWSty αὐ .5-ι.: 212
Ty ce Bivamiy2 4. avec 145 DEO sn iy ste 20-cacne.s 212
TS2h. «Ὁ Evst. 61 ...... 215 Zs) ieee Eivst. ΟἽ Geen. 215
185 a...Evan. 120 ...158 Oke Ronee Byst: 65 τον τς 215
its Sane Evan, 300 ...169 σὰ ΠΣ eee ναῦς 66: -:... 215
τ γδ:::; Evan, 301 ...169 Pe) hee Evet: 67 «νος 215
1881. Ὁ} ivan. 20. τες ἐς 144 ἌΘΒΡΕΝ Hiyst: 68 ...... 215
ΤΟΣ ἢ Evan. 10 ...... 144 2862505 Eyst. 69 ...... 215
LO. τς van 25 πε τ. 145 Pye} στ Evst. 10: ...... 212
TOSS s οἱ Evan. 302 ...169 σϑδίανις Kyst. 70 ...... 215
TO4% 63. Evan. 304 ...170 28090002. Evst. 7I ...... 215
1048}... Kvan. 303 ...169 ZOOM: ac. Kyst. 72, 72b 215
also 194.a1...Evst. 62 ...... 215 10) tree ive 73), τ: 215
TOBees. Evan. 305 ...170 200 Biyst, 74; -- Το 215
100) Ce Evan. 103 ...155 BOR. Biysts, 7 5p ποτε 215
WO} ΑΕ: πὶ Evan. 306 ...170 204.-.0.. Evst. 83 ...... 216
LOO}: τὸς Evan. 307 ...170 ΖΘ δεν: Evst. 76. ...... 215
200% .5-: Evan. 308 ...170 ΦΟθ το: Est: 77h 2-00: 215
2Ol Ess Evan. 309 ...170 Boyes: Evst. 16; ...... 212
ROD ea Evan. 310 ...170 DO Sie: Evst. 78. ...... 215
203 (not 303)...Evan. 311 ...170 200 tance Hyst..79) :..... 215
200% ..:: Hyan. 312 ...170 BOQ: Evyst. 80. ...... 215
208%... Evan. 313 170 ΞΘ Ε ΤΣ, Hivst,. 7:5: 5 τ τος 212
Ζοῦ.-.. Evan, 314 ...170 2O2RE WivSt., T5ies.-2- 212
ONO es. Evan. 315 ...170 2001s... Evan. 321 ...170
DMM s 2 Evan. 316 ...170 also 3031.....Eivst. IOI...... 216
ΤΟΤΕ, τες Evan. 317 ...170 BOA 6. Apost. 22.....-. 224
CNTY. Sede Eyan. 318 ...170 BSOBM Es Evst. 81 ...... 216
πε... ἌΤΙ τῦσον- 195 50 ύ..:... Apost. 23...... 224

Dae ach Act. Tayrtat. 195 ΞΟΠ." Byst.' τ πλσος 212

470 INDEX I.
PAGE PAGE
Reg. 308...... Apost. 24...... 224 | Coislin 202 ........600 Paul. ἘΠῚ ...137-8
30 0re. a ΝΕ ΤΙ eon τ 212 202.72 Say λένιν Acti {πεσε 188
2 1ο νιν Evst. 12 ...... 212 2047 δι λει ῬΝαΙ. δύ τον 201
ΕἾ ΤΣ Evst. 86 ...... 216 205° seh eresss AQUI 175s cas 188
πος Sie Lh eererperc 212 | Arsenal of Paris 4 ...Evan. 43...... 147
ἘΣ i 2s Evst. 87 ...... 216 | StGenevitve 4. A. 34 Evan.121.158,181
Sia te ai) Evst. 88 ...... 216 4. A. 35 Panl. 247...... 206
314 contains also Evan. W*...117-8 | Royal Institute of Paris...Evan. ...181
BES A 102. Evan. 322 ...170 | Poictiers (2.22.0. .ce00 ἘΣ ΤῚΣ 181
J also 3151.....Evst. 14 ...... 212 | Strasburg? Boecler... Paul. 248, &c. 199
SEG 6203: Evst. 89 ...... 216 from Molsheim...Evan. 431 ...175
ELS re Evst. 90 ...... 216

3:85 ΕΠΕΙΣ OT ...... 216 Germany 90 MSS.
319 ss---0A post. 25.2.0. 224 | (Berlin) Cod. Ravianus...Evan. 110...156
4501}.... Apost. 26...... 224 Cod. Diezii......... Evan, 400 ...174
Jatin Apost. 27...... 224 Cod. Knobelsdorf Evan. 433 ... 175
B04 Peace Evst. 92 ...... 216 | (Dresden) Cod. Boerner... Paul.G. 135-7
PaO eas: Eivst: 93 ....:. 216. |) Matthaci kt ites πον Evan. 241 ...167
B90 0rd Evst. 94. ...... 216 Ὁ ΠΕΣ Evan. 252 ...167
ΕΣ ΒΕ Apost. 30...... 224 £9 ΟΜ θο ἐνὸν Evan. 258 ... 167
3, ,άνῥοχοῦ (Higgs? ΘΒ, 2402 216 | Dresden 252............ ACS 107 ae 194
375:....:ὃ Evst. 60 ...... 215 | is perhaps the same as Apoc. 32 ...208
396 .s0000 Evan. 324 ...170 | (Frankfort-on-Oder)...Act. 42 ...... 190
By κε Evan, 325 ...170. (Giessen) Pt.0..s0eesvecsc0d Evan. 97 .....- 154
3773 also contains Evst. 98...216 (Gottingen) ..........+. Evan. 80 ...... 154
3784.00 Evan. 326 ...171 | Gottin. 2 ........-.s000 Apost. 5....... 223
379s +--+. Evan. 28 ...... 145 | (Hamburg) Cod. Wolf. Evan. H....106-7

380... Evan. 327,p. 171 and Evst.99 216
381...Evan. 328, p.171and Evst. 100 216

20d secon Apost, 33...... 224
483:8.... Apost. 34...... 224

ys ee ΡΟ, OF sores. 209
849...-+% Pauls ΤΟΝ τς 204
Opidlin -- °° ουσεζονεν Evan, F*...105-6
ΤΟΣ cossvsenvece Evan, 329 ...171
6 Ὁ ΠΝ Evan. 36 ...... 146
7 ae be cra VAM. 37 scenes 146
7 OP Or Py Evan. 40 ...... 146
τ ΤῸΝ Evan. 39 ...... 146
BAP λιν Evan. 41 ...... 146
BRS, te odoverve ἈΝ, lccesses 188
BOOT ΤΥ CUPL; cap seve 188
BP Novetdicrees ἐν ΟΥ̓ 200
BB wovaes severe PAW 23 τονε, 201
BY Ciwtssrad eas. Evyst. 13 ...... 212
TOR) ertisavves Evan. 34 ...... 146
£96 © ,ἐδπυδδννεν Evan. 330 ...171
197 | vessovevecss Evan. 331 ...171
ΔΗ Evan. 35 ...... 140

Cod. Uff. 2 or r Paul. M. or 53 ....138,201

Cod. Uff. 1 or 2 ....... Abe as. .s50- an 190
(Leipsic) Cod. Matth. 18... Evan. 99...155
Cod. Matth. s.......... Paul. 76 ....:. 202
Cod. Tischendorf. i....Evan. © ...... 124
Cod. Tischendorf. iv... Evan. tisch?...181
Cod. Tischendorf. v.... Evst. tisch®’...220
6. Bh Rete Apost. tisch®f 225
(Munich) Univ. Libr. Evan. X. ...118-9
ΕΑ ΤΙΣ Apoe. 81 ...... 209

Be vacsts Paul, 119..020 204

BG slik. tases Evan. 423 ...175

By sit cansdds Evan. 425 175

eon EEE Evan. 424 175
901i xs ἄς Evan, 432 ...175
KIDDE As sises Patil, ΣΟ) κμεν 203

268. ἐν, οὶ Evan. 429 ...175

BIO. .ssceveces Evan. 422 ...175

RUS wiasivacdes BOW 2 70) ssnnen 197

220. .csseoneess Evst. 34 ...... 213

DEG. 2 ονϑδο κυ. Ἀροο. 79 ...... 200

ΔΑΝ, ὐὐ[0ν... Evst. 154...... 210

BURT δὲ ξβδενν Act. 46..0.0008 190

INDEX I. 471
PAGE PAGE
Univ. Libr. 381...,...Evan. 428 ...175 | (Wolfenbiittel) ............ Evan, Οὗ ...112
BB 3b. ὈἼἶχει, ss Hysty24. ..:-. 213 | Codex Carolinus A,B...Evan. P,Q.113-4
es ee Paul 54. ...... 201 MV eset ease Act. 69...... 192
AO Mesos Evan. 430 175 KVIb LOW 8: Evan. 126...158
AIG R's «Ππιᾶτε, ss ῬΡΆΌΪΕ ΠΤ 720:.:-.»- 203 Gud. gr. 104. 2...Act. 97...... 193
POT 0 τς. Evan. 427 ...175
A] Becceebees == Evan. 426 175 Horttanp 6 MSS.
BOAO το... Raulleroses ce 203
BT OCs Ἀν, Evan. 83 ...... 153 (Leyden) 74? ......--+..- Evan. 79 ...153
hig SARA ces Apoe. 80 ...... 209 WT a creranaeid sionsiale INCE NS Aa sce 189
BOB totes. Evan. 84 ...... 153 Meermann.116............ Evan. 122...158
Bb onemecct: Evan. 85 ...... 153 ΟΥΟΠΟΨΙ ΕΘ, πο ἘΠ Evan. 435...176
(Niiremberg) ......... Evst. 31 ...... 213 | Sealigeri243.............. Evst. 6...... 212
(Pesth) Cod. Eubeswald...Evan. 100 155 (Uitrecht) reese seer cens oe Evan. F. 104-5

Cod. Jancovich ...... ΤΆ ἢ 78... es 153
(Posen) Lycaei Aug. Evan. 86 ...... 153
(Saxe-Gotha) Matthaei...Evst. 32 ...213
(Tréves) Cod. Cuzan. Evan. 87 ...... 154
Cod. S. Simeon ...... Evst. 179...... 219
(Tiibingen) Evst. R. or tubing’. 114,220

(Vienna) Imperial Library.

ΠΟ ΔΤ ΘΟ, ΤΟ σεν Ὁ...» Evan, 218 ...165
De cle th a ais Evan. N....... IIo
TL eROeSEOSCONG Evst. 45 ...... 214
PSUS Sasiat Bivan. 46) .2.0c. 152
20 secon aces Hiyan. 77 .c...- 152
Be nodsoasoots Evan. 123 158
ΦΧ eres Evan. 124 158
ΔΖ Bec ceee Orr Evan. 219 ...165
a eeeeree: Evan. 220 ...165
4c: Act iOGtiiee. ΙΟΙ
BE τος aves A CtH6 3% eter. ΙΟΙ
ΟΝ πλάνος ING tall OY eopnsonee IgI
BOR stance ds ActwO 7oneseqers 192
Soi tasedens Evan. 221 165
30 f accede. Evan. 222 165
40S abavsers Evan. 223 165
Adsccneparssz3 Evst. 155...... 219
AD sess Evan. 434 ...175
ACH NG e 203 ἘΔΟΙΟ Ἐὰν... 206
Δα Stuer recess Apoe: 38, ..:2:. 208
Forlos. 5, Kollar. 4...... Evan. 108...156

Forlos. 15, Kollar. 5 ...Hvan. 3 ...143
Forlos. 16, Kollar. 6 ...Evan. 125...158
Forlos. 19, Kollar. 10...Paul. 71 ...202
Forlos. 23, Kollar. 7 ...Evst. 46 ...214
Forlos. 29, Kollar. 26...Apoc. 36 ...208
Forlos. 30, Kollar. 8 ...Evan,224...165
Forlos, 31, Kollar. g ...Hyan.225...165

IRELAND 3 MSS. (Trin. Coll. Dublin),

Cod. Barrett......... Evan, Ζ....110-121
Cod. Ussher, A. 1. 8 ...Evan. 63 ...150

[N.B. Evan. 64 is lost]...150
Cod. Montfort. G. 97 ...Evan. 61 ...149

Tray 320 MSS.
(Bologna) Can. Reg.

OOM RES Evan. 204 ...164

(Florence) 47 or 48 MSS.

Laurent. iv. I.......-- FNCU 138 concer 192
LV MS icacasses iNet osnenuese 192
LV) 20 ues Sonics: Acts 86" ἐν 193
ΟΣ Neti 87.2: «- 193
TVG ON saces Act. 147 ...196
BVA ΘΙ, 2 5.555 Act. 88...... 193
VANS Dieta es aejer INGE tel) cobene 193
ΕΒ Ν. scsciaies Evst, 113 ...217
Vil eGtaccccass Act. 143 ...195
Vil ei peeeaceeas Evst. 114 ...217
γὴν 3 -ος:ς Evan. 182...τ62
WISHUO cokes Evan. 363 ...172
ὙΠῸ τ δ ὡς; Evan. 182 ...162
VARHE Stas cca Evan. 184 ...163
Wills .ssscecs Evan, 185 ...163
Visi sauces «ες Evan. 186 ...163
Wily i sconpaane Evst, I15 ...217
VAIS ee canes: Evan. 187 ...163
ΠῚ Evan. 364 ...172
ὙΠ Sheen 096) Evan, 188 ...163
Vie 27. .-«ττονςς Evan. 189 ...163
VIN 2,9 Ἐπ νος Evan, 190 ...163

Vi SO Wovens ss Evan, 191 ...163

472 INDEX I.”

PAGE PAGE
Laurent. vi. 30.........Evan. 192...163 | Ambros. B. 93......... Evan. 352 ....172
ὙΣ ἐν: Evst. ττό...217 ΜΝ GR ied ννοις Evan. 353 ...172
Vis 32vwcecees Evan. 193 ...163 θεῖ Act. 137 ...195
VIN 83s cine Evan. 194 ...163 LOO asics Act..138 ...195
Vis SQ ουνδουδῦ Evan. 195 ...163 TOMA cinih Act. 139 ...195
Vi. 30:.....20- Evan. 365 ...172 FAG Seve snve Paul. 175 ...205
VIBE. oh aX Apoc. 77...209
WL EG ahi Evan. 196 ...163 | (Modena) 6 MSS. 9...Evan. 358 ...172
VAIS KA ees ae Evan. 197 ...163 14...Paul,9177 ...205
Sr wale tk Paul. 100 ...202 27...Hvst. III ...217
Rs Pi, στε Paul. ror ...202 196...Act. H. ......129
Bate AREA Paul. 102 ...203 242... Evan. 359 ...172
> a ΤΩ aes Paul. 103 ...203 243-..Act. 142 ...195
ἐν eee Act. 149 ...196
Ἢ ΜΕΥ Evst. 117...217 | (Naples) 9 MSS.
Othe: Evan. 108 ...163 a τὶ Actiy83 2. Jc 192
OP eee Act. 148 ...196 τ ΒΖ ς oak Evst. 138 ...218
BOOT 5.5 coe Evan. 366 ...172 1 Gt aan’, 03 Evan. 401 ...174
BYOB Ges since Evan. 367 ...172 VIC} 26215 13 Act, 174 ...2.. 197
Deer canna Evst. 112 ...217 rCaastete.s Evan. 402 ...174
(ΕἸ ΕΤΕΥΕΡΕ ΗΕ: Evst. 118 ...217 Lf ORG, oo Beery Evan. 403 ...174
Richard. 84......... Evan. 368 ...172 2 C. 15...Evan.W?or R ...114
OS ce dah Evan. 369 ...172 Scotti......... Evan. 404 -..174
Richard. K. i. n. 11....Evan. 370...172 No mark......... Act. 173... 197

St Mark’s?! Apost. 4...223
(Palermo) Bibl. Reg....Paul. 217 ...206

(Messina) 1...;........ Evan. 420 ...175
P's le Act. 175 ......197 | (Parma) De Rossi r...Evan. 360 ...172
2...Evan. 361 ...172

(Milan) 23 MSS.

Ambros. 6......... Paul. 171...205 | (Rome) 159 MSS. Vatican (109)
Tey eee trace Evan. 343...171 | Cod. Vatic. 165......... Paul. 58...201
Me yestamorany Paul. 172 ...205 BAO i ΤΟ Evan, 127 ...159
TO Sceriomscens Evan. 344 ...371 Bi Tisdennwacl Evst. 35 ...213
ἐς ΣῈ Evan. 345 ...171 BB ΤΣ ΛΝ Evan. 5. ...115
WE rs occu Evan. 346 ...171 BED c τς ςἐοὸς Evan, 128 ...159
ΣῪ Evan. 347 ...171 CT Beer Evan, 129 ...159
a Evan. 348 ...171 BEG ΤΣ ΤΡ Evan. 130 ...159
δηὲ, λένε Evan. 340 ...171 ἀδοιδίιε vas Evan, 131 ...159
Otassvs205 Evst. 102 ...216 BGS. Brexcns Evan, 132 ...159
BHO ΑΡΒΒΗΡΕ Evan. 350...171 ἀθθαξξιις Evan. 133 ...159
πὶ eee Apost. 46 ...224 BOM divncens Evan, 134 ...159
ios cee dos Evst. 103 ...216 SOR τὰ isotne Evan, 135 ...150
DO νι Evan. 351 ...171 366. .ssckous Act. ΤΑ κοινοὶ 192
Wine visnng Evst, 104 ...217 967, .5.steus ALOE 3. «ονονι 102
οὐ cisusexs Evst. 105 ...217 ΡΥ Apoc. 38...... 208
ee Evst. 106 ...217 0 ee Evan. 136 ...159

1 This manuscript, as Codd. 201—3 of the Gospels (see p. 163), was cited by Lamy (but only for
1 John y. 7) and, like them, has probably disappeared ; as also Cod. Evan. 370.

4...

INDEX I. 473

PAGE PAGE
Cod. Vatic. 756......... Evan. 137 ...189 | Cod. Vatic. 2063......... Evst, 127 ...217
oe Evan. 138 ...159 Φούθ::::::::: Ἄροο. Β...140-1
15 ΘΕ. τοτονν Evan. 139 ...150 2 OF ΘΙ ΤΩΡ: Evan. 382 ...173
"όο..-----.-- ENG In ΤΩ. -.--:: 192 DOSOsscsacooe Evan. 175 ...162
Oli scscencs: Pinal: 8.1 τος 202 τυ τς ΤΑ͂Ν Evan. 176 ...162
WOO spicsees Paul. 82..... 202 ON Fe σευ δας Evst. 128 ...217
ΠΟΕΣ..:.-.:: Paul, 8324.00 202 O20 κατ ς. Evan. 380 ...173
BOO τος τὲς Pauls θη Ἐν 202 οἷ. 1} 5 δ τ. Eyan.. Ν. ...110
TOO τ ae soa Evst. 36...... 213 olim Basil. 163......... Evan. 177 ...162
ΤῊ Oke asic Raule Sea. 202 | Alexand.Vat.12......... Evst. 129 ...217
TDS 5 news Evst. 119...217 OB wereeens Evan. 154...160
ΤῊ τὸς Evst. 120...217 20 sasee- Αἰδοῦς θὲ... -ς 192
57 ae Evst, 121 ...217 68 (not 69).. Apoc. 41...208
TUS OP eevee Evan. 140...159 VAD περ Eyan. 155 ...160
HL) sanbobee Evan. 371 ...172 FO yecegosune Act. 40°...... 100
Ἰπ0 0,5: ..Ὁ- Evan. 141 ...159 TOO: -sseeee- Evan. 156 ...160
THOME. cee Evan. 372 ...172 Vat. Ottobon} σις τς. Evst. 130 ...217
WHOO a scmsns- Evst, 122 ...217 Silecocgance Paul. 195 ...205
ΤΟ ΘΟ: Ὁ. τος Cod. B. and Or ccs. Paul. τού ...205
Apoc. gt...84-94, 210 GORs. eer Evan. 386 ...173

ΤΣ ΠΟΙ: εις Evan. 142 ...160 LY 5asseeee vst: 121 «Ὁ 207
UROL. c/a Evan. 143 ...160 ry Ose. . Paul. 197 ...205
TOR Ae - ττὸ see Evan. 144 ...160 ΟΡ ΡΥ Evan. 387 ...173
ἘΠ. neon os Evan. 373 ...172 11 staat: tefoas Evan, 388 ...173
ὙΠ ΟΣ, dn τον Ach. ΤΉ τς: 196 DES cacaeats Net ΟῚ. cen 196
WAAR recece-s Evan. 374 175 20,7. τοῖς Evan. 389 ...173
PRI iaas. Evst. 123 ...217 DGS. .sczeae Acts LOR -.--- 196
Dh2Gceer seas: Apost. 38 ...224 Sieh sasha Acts 163702. 197
bi iele vs Saar Evan. 375 ...173 B2Oossstetne Evst. 132 ...217
pC ona ati Evan. 376 ...173 BOR Sobor Paul. 202 ...205
DhA Gees vccse Evan. 145 ...160 ΘΕ, ἀξ: Evan. 390 ...173
n(Oits) aaeeneae Evan. 377 ...173 Ail Outsider Evst. 133 ...218
TOAQs cen Paul. 189 ...205 BU csctschen Act. τ: 25. 197
TOROse =o sees Weting6. ic. 196 ABD ov ewaisiss Evan. 301 ...173
iO ΘΒ π Evan. 278 ...173 | Palatino-Vat. &......... Evan. 146 ...160
τ ΕΑ ΡΟ Acts ΤΡ.) : τες 196 ΤΟΣ Evan. 381 ...173
ho τ νας Apoc. 67......209 re basco. Evan. 147 ...160
TOW ences ese ING 158--- τος τού EDO πρτος Evan. 148 ...160
D760 scenes == Evan. 379 ...173 ET Venporcres Evan. 149 ...160
ἘΟΟ πος Apoc. 68 ...209 PROS ρον Evan. 150...160
WQ0Gss es on INGE TAO: ss < 196 22Ο ΣΝ δ: Evan. 151 ...160
EO 3 sce snee Bvan. 173 ...162 Το ΟΡ ΘῊΡ Evan, 152...160
Ἰο85... Evst. 124 ...217 XS ΣΡ ἢ Evan. 153 ...160
2002....+00s- Evan. 174 ...162 Pio-Wat: 5Os-cs- Act. 8o ...... 192
17... -..Ὁ- Eivst. 125 ...217 ἘΣ Mecrabe ss Evan. 158...161
BOA nears: Byvst. 126 ...217 Urbino-Vat. 2......... Evan. 157 ...160
BOOZ wesc. Act. 160..,.-. 196 Seo vetvos: MCte Oca cas 192

το 10 Scholz’s index, and I suppose correctly, but in his Catalogue of Evangelistaria he num-
bers it 1256,

474 INDEX I.
PAGE PAGE
Angelica Convent Valliccll. BE. 22 .....ΨΨ.Ψς Evan. 393..-173
AL Te Beeeeeeees Evan, 178...162 BaP Gh .cinases Act. 168 ...197
Au 2. UB seers Act.G=L...129 Ἔα Ε,:,:,... Evan. 394.-.173
Bis hse h Sine ietes Evan. 179...162
Barberini 8.....Ψ..Ψ.. Hive Ties ύροι;.. 161 | (SYTACUBC) -οὐννννοντνεενον Evan. 421...175
9. «ὅδε νι, Evan. 160%:.<c..-. 161 (Turin) 19 MSS.
Ἐφ ὐϑος, ἃ. Evans WG. cites <n 161
Paalter,.cceseoss.se Evan, O4 ...112
Ἐτυσισεθξ, Evan. 162 ......... 161 :
i ee Evan. 163 ......... 161 ate See Eran. 583. ἘῈ
EZ. ὐπτῖξ. Evan. πα δε αὔτ 161 pate pa ke Eva 390-209
su mead, Evan. 265 \..cii-... 161 43: Ὁ. V. 23 -+--+ Evan. 334..-171
Tt dade: Evst. 1340 sec... 218 44. Ὁ. v. 24......Evan, 335.-.171
LOA hands Evst. 135, 136...... 218 δ 8: Desk Bauisres Evan. 337... 171
96 Ate. Apost. 40 ......... 224 οἷν wet ἌΣ Yvan. 308, ὐ χη
DBs «ities ADOG Ai ncesat ss 208 Se ee Evan. 336...17%
50. Ἰτέτ ΤΠ 206 ate pea Eval 399: γα
a Pee Byan. 166i... 161 eo MG hes cae
MBA: Ὁ. 1. 50 svexis Paul. 165...204
908. i283. ivan CO) cases on 161 αξεῖ, Τ peg :
SUL. ΑΜΘΒΕ, Evan. 168 ......... 161 τῷ Ν ᾿ς hans E vet πῆρ
igs ARRAN, QUO S---TAD, 23 (now 19) 315. ¢. ii. 17...Act. 134 ...195
2477: 85:93. ACER SEE ss acct 5. 192 cl Mer Paul, 168
No mark.. Apost. 41 ......... 224 3295 ὁ; if we oe ae
(now 1) 328. ¢. ii. 31 ... Act. 136 ...195
Borgia (now Propaganda) EC Fa i epee Evan. 338...171
Ledexon sina Hivans We iceccs 116 344. b. i. it eo Evan. 340...171
250.......6. Evan, 180...... 162 350. TAR οὐκ )κὴ Evan. 34%... Re
ἘΦ ΕΌ ΔΩ BIVAte ιν aswace 214
Comninaie (Venice) 46 or 48 MSS.
Ἂν Bs Ν.65...... Evan. 395...173 ΞΕ Mark. πιο, οὐδιυινλνι Evan. 205...164
ib ᾿ κεν dees eve Evan, 206...164
Gmtlogis ‘Homans Bi cghsexneth Evan, 207...164
(3) Evan. 383, 384, 385.-.....173 Ociaiianisnases Evan. 208...164
(2) (AGG Ἴ7Ὶ; 74. .nterasersesee 197 Oe ae alte csc use Evan. 209...164
Corsini 838......ἀὙννννννν Ἄροο. 73 ...209 τι πεν shake Act. 96...... 193
Ghigian. R. iv. 6......... Evan. 396...173 CPP Ce eT ey Evst. 139 ...218
Ἐν, ὙΥκ δον κὐτανεν Apoc. 72 ...209 Vr cee Evan. 210...164
Le a ae Act. 169 ...197 hs san thva thane Evan. 357.-.172
ἘΣ τὰ: Paul. 207 ...205 ADs esteisticares Evan. 354...172
ite ΕΝ ἀν: Paul. 208 ...205 2 a ΤΡ Paul, 110 ...203
Malatestian. xxvii. 4 ...Evst. 144 ...218 δ εν εὐ χυγοῦνινον Paul, 111 ...203
a0 ab Ἅ...... Evst. 145 ...218 OR valdddes kxaren Paul, 112 ...203
Valicell. B. 86......... Act. 166 ...197 B99 is svteneasenees Evan, 211...164
TAR. sees Byan. 169...161 KaOesitesi Werte Evan, 212... 164
thy ee Evan. 397...173 BAN ccubahe sina kes Evan. 355..-172
Se iiisceiaca, Apost. 42...224 BAG ἐὰν ε νον tis Evan, 213...164
oy.) Se Evan, 170...161 BAS ssacmacintaee Evan. 214...164
ΡΝ Evan. 171...161 BAA Saaasenevente Evan, 215...164
Di AO τειν Apoc. 21 ...207 δαδιλειι μεν χεὰν Evan. 356...172
(missing) D. 41 (or 4. 1) Evst. 156 ...219 546MM ἃ coves ers Act. 140 ...195
ἢ iikaetivean Evst, 137...218 δή διιννννδοεννονυι Evst, 107 ...217

INDEX I. 475

PAGE PAGE

St Mark 549........0.00+0 Evst. 108 ...217 | S. Syn. 139...... Evan, 25.510. τ οὔτι ἐνε 167
BRO: de taeowenwen ss Evst. 109 ...217 TQ ΠΟΙ MOSM 1.1... 193

cif Oe ae Evst. 110 ...217 FOO ses dA PUG HO! τοῦτον. -ς,.ς 208

O26. se sticcec.n4- Evst. 140 ...218 λον eed (Paul pen 2aeseeesee tess 203
INDIAN) τ ποτ κα σονος Evan. U. ...117 a6 Lewes. BHvani'246. τνιυν ἐν 167
απο ΣΝ, νὸς Evst. 141 ...218 264...... Ἤ ΑΗ 248: 5..:.»-0.- 167

Di litKe)iececes Evan. 405...174 268...... Bivans 245. | sadeces: 167

As (WIL) esa ce Evan. 406...174 200.80se IEIVSUH 52. secnsscesees 214

Β΄ ΠΕΣ. ac ian Evan. 407...174 267, 3ς vist. igus aus: οἵ 214

781 eee Evan. 408...174 DO Sesces: ἜΗΙ eS Ate cos ateeeeeee 214

8. (1. 1) een Evan. 409...174 ΟῚ see ADOBE TG aed. sees 224

το 1 τὴ ,οοὦ-7»α.: Evan. 410...174 BOQ sce Paral tO jee racn sr 203

Dl semssennssiess5 Evan. 411...174 ἜΘΗ: ἘΠ ACES TOG) ay ees ato 194

ἘΣ 1: ΓΟ) το Evan, 412...174 3190 ened: PACES TORE sesseee-te-< 193

12. WA Oe T°) Wee Evan. 413...174 BV lee oc INCU TOO! sascetasess 193

TA ἢ, 2ιὴπ...:: Evan. 414...174 272 «τὰ AVANT 247) ole caches 167

ἘΠ ΩΝ 2.2) τ: :ν Evan. 415...174 4806. τος Bivalns 242) ee cceeres 167

LOM cases strane Evst. 142...218 Cista...... Evan. V and 250...117, 167

M7 len OA) τ τ see Evan. 416...174 | Typ. 8. Syn. 1...Hvan. 244. ......... 167
151925) ΤῊ Evan. 417...174 Bee OVENS CON τὴν 167

BD ses ὅδ, δὴ, cite Evan. 418...174 g...Evst. 51 and 56...214-5

St Mark’s, Canonici...... Evan. 216...164 ἘΠῚ BVStord Qimeent caeeecne 214
iy Seepcen abe Evan. 217...164 KOS ΒΕ ν BOL gece ances 214
Palimpsest............... Evst. ven‘’...220 15} ΤΠ ΠΣ 5. weceedeces 167
ἢ $2 BITS. eA ΡΟΒΟ ΡΣ. τον τὸς 224

The following seem missing : aye Evatt 68 olcsccsce. a4

St Michael's, Venice University 25......... Apoc. 65 ...209
49-...51595 Evst. 143 ...218 Tabul. Impi....2... Evan. 251...167

WAL vvevvees Evan. 419...174 Matth. a......... Act. 98 ......193

Matth. r (Syn. !)...Apoc. 507 or go...

(Verona) Psalter...Evan, O° ...112
Cod. Pogodini, 472...Evan. 4?°...178
BURRS gi STES: (ΘΟ ΒΕΔ) ct. csbeccaveet Evst. 1oP®...178
(Moscow).
S. Syn. 4:.:.2:Apost, 13 <2.0........ 223 | (St Petersburg)

Be ee PEGE ΟΣ 3-0 300-seneesea tars 193 | Codex Sinaiticus......... N.T.8 ...76-9
yt aes (Rivets BOF s, vont ebwe te ons 166 | Cod. Sangerm. ......... Paul. E ...132-3
AD secre NSM AG snack. aon τ τος 214 | Tischendorf. 11. .......... Evan. I...... 107
ΤΟΥΣ Πνπ 5: ona ai4 | olim Coislin. ππ 1: Evan. 437...176
Aas aie Bivatig 25 oc ass. το προτοῦ: 167 | (7) Four fragments of the Gospels,

Th pee Bivall 23 Q te .ceoenaskas nas 166 one of the Acts, one of St Paul,
48.2006 να. 23 Sc aceaaavscee seis 166 and one copy of the Gospels,
49......Εἰνδα. 240...00scceeeeeeeene 166 Ges eri ed ge artes savec concn 1.057: 127
61:----- ΒΝ - 140 | Βδύζοροι. ἵν: 587 1:..::- Evst. τϑῦ...1γ8
Gye ἈΠΟ AG πο skis nsiere 208 1. 47 τ dese Evan, 205...1.78
0) ae Piyatis 240s. <2. το τς 167 Valo LO. sees Evst. 3° ...178
Ὁ8:-:- Act. K and 1024... 130, 193 VILA SOM eres. Apost, 3°°...178
01... 1 π᾿ δ δ τ ΤΥ τ seats 203 ἐδ τοὺς Ovicviens oe Evan. 5° ...178
120......Evan. O and 257...112, 167 ix, 3. 471 ...dvan, 7°° ...198

1 See p. 225, note,

476 INDEX 1.
PAGE PAGE
Petropol. x. 180 ...... Evst. 6" ...178 | B. vi.27 (now K. iii. 3)...Evan. 1...... 142
xi. 1.2.330... Evan. 8 ...178 a: Act. ὅσ. ...199
xi. 3. 181 ...Evst. 9% ...178 ΒΥ ΧΙ t cca ans Acts Rees 187
ὍΣ το en Evan. 11}Ῥ...178 ΒΥ ΘΕ, ς ΑΙ Ae τς 187
Notitia Cod. Sin, Evan. tisch.? ...... KBE |} (Ss Gallte, Ae iiecasra: Evan, A...122-4
Evan. tisch.? ...... 181 re Evan. O° ...112
ΠΡΟΣ, ΟΣ Evst. Petrop.* ...220 Evan. W° ...118
Evst. Petrop.*¥?...220 | (Geneva) 19......-...++00 Evan. 75 ...152
Double palimpsest..Apost. Petrop...225 BOM bse. oe Act. 29 ...... 189
(Zurich) Zwingle ...... Paul. 56 ...207

ScotnanD 7 MSS.

(Glasgow) Hunter. Mus.
ΒΒ: B. or 1633 ...Apost. 44...224
CHOLOT 1034 τὴς Apost. 45...224

Oe waratesteccee ivani.-'<..... 181
OT ae ere cecenncee Evan. ...... 181
Q. 1. (or 3) 35, 36... Evst. ...... 223
ΒΡ ΒΥ eke coca Hiyan;*s.:--: 181
(Edinburgh) Univ. Libr....Evan....... 181

(Escurial) i.....00.22-s5+ Evst. 40 ...214
1.58. 005. Evan. 233...166
iii. 5 ...Evan. 230...165
iii, 6 ...Evan. 231...166
iii, 7 ...Evan. 232...166
i ὦ σεῦ 40 (2.0214
aa-dnvet. 42 ...214
... Evan. 227...165
... vst. 43. ...214
... van. 228...165
... Evan, 226...165
...Evan, 229...165
Six codices of Act. &ec. ...199, 206, 210

MMM MMM Μ 9. 88 δ
oo

(Toledo) ...... EVA, erear perenne ames 181
SWEDEN (Upsal) one MS.
Sparwenfeld 42 .......-. Act, 68...... 192
SWITZERLAND 14 MSS.

(Basle) B. ii. §....,.... Act, &e. 1.00 199

1M Oe Ae PACS Batiass sos 200

B. vi. 21 (now K. iv. 35)
Eyan. Τὸ, and Apoc. 15...103-4, 207
Be Was, ρον Eyan: 2..... 143

TuRKEY (Oriental Monasteries)
104? MSS.

(Cairo) Patriarch of Alexandria’s

Library, 5 copies of Gospels ...... 185
3 copies of the Acts and Epistles ...200
One copy of a Lectionary?............ 222
One copy of the Gospels and Psal-

(Chalké) Seven codices in Lamy’s
list (?) and eight in Dr Millin-

(Constantinople) Patriarch of Jeru-
salem’s Library: at least six
codices of Gospels &e. ...... 180, note

Also a palimpsest Evst. ............++ 222

(Jerusalem) Great Greek Monastery of

the Holy Sepulchre.

Scholz Codd, 1-7 ...Evan, 450-6...177
Coxe’s 14 codices of Gospels ......... 185
Codd. 8, 9 (Scholz)... Act. 183, 184...198
Cod. 10 (Scholz)...... Evst. 158 ...... 219
College of Holy Cross; No. 3..Evan...185
S. Melanae ........0.c000- Evst.159...219
(Larnaka) Bp. of Citium...Evan..,..... 186
(Milo). ᾿νε Ως ὩΣ Evan. ......186

Evst, ...... 222

(Patmos) S. John’s Convent.
(3) Scholz...... Evan. 467, 468, 469...177

! We copy the numbers and descriptions of the Glasgow manuscripts from Haenel and Scholz,
but there are probably less than six separate codices,

INDEX I. 477

PAGE

Two others seen by Coxe ............ 185
Two of Act. numbered 182 by Scholz..197
Coxe "Non 27. τ......ὕὃς alice Seek a 206
(7) Scholz Evst..172-178 .......0000 219
ὩΣ προ 22. Bi cccos avs Evan. 457...177
ΕἸ ἘΣ ΤΠ ΒΙΝΑΝΙΝ Evan. 458...177

Tide tate bos tioveoe ae Evan. 459...177

ΘῸ πεισθεῖεν. Evan. 460...177
Oerasanesteoness Evan. 461...177

WOW τ ον δορ θυ Evan. 462...177

14 a ΨΥΡῸΣ τ Evan. 463...177

ΘΟΕ ESERIES Sore Evan. 464...177

EQUA Estee ἐν Evan. 465...177

26:53. hts Been Evan. 466...177

Coxe saw ten move copies of the
Gospels, besides three in the

BO Wer! LADEATY 0isisc0cssssnniie ascent 185
ΕΙΟΠΟΙ͂ΖΟ ΤΟ ον ορεσσοτν Act. 185 ...108
ἐπ ΘΒ ΣΝ τ τος Act, 188 ...198
epee ocenerae eee Eyst. 160...219

ΠΡ . Eyst. 161...219

ΟἿΣ ee isis oe Evst. 162...219

MO wach aguas Evst. 163...219

1 Bie Ce meneeaeeea Evst. 164...219

Wop scdseeeenen: Evst. 165 ...219

ὉΠ τς cereus can Evst. 166...219

Ds es tascnipng τον Evst. 167...219

2.3. τὴν τη ττῖ τυ τος Evst. τ68...210

DER Se Bas Eyst. 169...219
ΚΕ ΜΑΣ ΘΝ: Evst. 170...219

ING MAE a enceeaoene Evst. 171...219
Sea Ra 7 Apost. 49...225

TG as cata κειδος ἐσν ρος Apost. 50...225

σός: ... 2 τὸ τιον ξενν Apost, 51...225

WG ΠΆΡΙΣ... ες ως Apost. 54...225

Compare Coxe’s list of Lectionaries...

(Sinai) St Catherine’s ?

PAGE
Manuscripts whose present location
is unknown (42?)
Evan. O or Eyst. Bandur’ ...112, 220

Hiyan, UP <r. spguep eee ἐν ae, 116
TVA ΕΜ θεν τς πὸ τ 146
Hiyan? 64 να τε το ΤΡ 150
Fives 66s. ἐν ἀπο ϑυδεεν, yee 151
Hyan. 80, 81, 82 2: τὴν τ Υ ΤΣ 153
Evan. 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94 ws... 154
Evan. 101 (not 102), 104.........-s0008 155
Hivan, 100): 20 ogden Here: ah ne ee 163
Ewan) 208: sacesetie ἢ ΠΡ ΠΤ 164
VARS U53y δ δ δα ᾿ς ΣΕ, Lace ge ἔχεις 167
Bivanis!3620( 340M) a? sewn deiGh occ 172
Bryans 49 εν enh oe - 174
Evan. 436 or Est. 153 ........0..c0s. 176
DCR: [ir Sen EA a ee 180
(2) Lowes late Askew ...Evan....... 181
Askew 619 ......... Evan....182, note
DCG BE Eth δε 187
ASTROS Hel Ss ee ee 189
ΑΘ AYN (Sonido, ναι, Meee eee cose Igo
ACB Orem tates heat os EE 100
NCEE IS DT ii oat τ oe 190
Act. 55, i.e. Evan. 90 ............ IQ
Baal. £3 πιο λιε τον Fee ie τῷ 200
Pa ait as octet ἢ So ee 200
Patil GO» s:i45+.satsvuetonadecs eee be: 201
APBEF ΣΟ ΕΟ ΣΝ, ἐδο 207
APOCPRE eee redo, vescdiesccveneas 207
BOC WE searzssassatasaecars. eee pasets 207
Wvpti12 305 tise sassace ae ΕΝΈΘΌΩΣ 213
PVE 33) wteweseanws sseWerceeeste dee 213
Evat. 38 wie s slecaicisielciomioe cere eee 214
Evst. 39
Eivst; 432 eacunasansedanstk ΜΝ 218
Evst. 153 or Evan. 436............ 219
ByVits Τδινκοιρον παν ἐς τὸν eee 219
Apost. 3 (Batteley) ............... 223

AOS 4 Pio ιν θυ, σον sie ΜῊ 223

INDEX II.

General Index of the principal persons and subjects referred to in
this volume.

N.B. For Greek manuscripts of the N. T. consult Index I. Where passim is
annexed to a reference, only a portion of the passages are cited in which

that person’s name or subject occurs,

PAGE
Abbreviations in manuscripts...14, 29,

38, 43, 44, 135, 294, 436, 452
Accents employed in manuscripts...39—

42, 86, 290

FACOTOULONS ates cccsssaaanaaen copays 373, 451
Acts and Cath. Epist., divisions of ...53,
54, 58

Acus employed by scribes......... 24, 102
Adamantius (Origen) ...... 384, 390, 392
PAOUMS, SID ΤῊΝ ς ἔρον νιν κεεεενῆρας Sapte 281

Adler, J. G. C. ...234, 238, 240n, 244,
245, 247, 330, 331, 442

OTST SRR aR, αὶ 4, 414 Nn. I
Aithiopic version......... 277, 316, 395 τι.
Aire, JD) ATOR. . osircacac.e sage teenie « 345

African form of Old Latin version......
132, 255, 259

AGQUNON, BD casnancncagnsaavdereeae sane 122 ἢ
DAGON cn iniesactics deseo athe dans 176, 208
Alcala de FLEn aires ................ 289, 291
Alcuin’s Latin manuscripts ...262, 459
Alda IN. Δ, λα 159, 288, 298

Alexandrian forms...... 13, 79, 84, 99,
109, 111, 374, 412—418
ΟΣ, Dia Tha acy sos δοκέοι 116, 196 n, 208
Alford, H. Dean...116, 126, 236, 298n,
372, 375, 378, 399, 400, 403, 405,

406, 408, 437, 439, 446, 451

Aller, I. Divsrrcenstaite 152, 164, 257, 279
“οτος, ΤΗΝ Εν dann tana can ὁρίζον 329—330
Ambrose, ATOUD, i sisstnrunahecavant 50 n. 2
Ambrosian, Cod, Lat. ........cesecesees 258

n indicates note.

Amelotte
Amiatinus, Cod. Lat. (am.) ...264, 342
Ammonian sections...... 50—53, 58, 142,
297, 434 passim
Ammonius of Alexandria ..........+.-+- 50
Analogy of God’s Providence prepares us
for various readings..............- I—3
᾿Αναστασιμὰ εὐαγγέλια .......«οννον 42, 213
Andreas, Archp., his Chapters &c....54,
56, 207—9
Andrew, St., Avignon, Cod. Lat. (and.)
265
Angelus Vergecius ...... 38 n. 2, 195, 204
Anglo-Saxon Versions ........+.ssessee 280
Antonio Ae. of Lebrixa .............. 289
Apocalypse, ancient divisions of ...54, 58
Apocryphal supplements to N, T....... 8,
425, 430°
Apostolical Constitutions...421, 442, 446
Apostolos (and ἀποστολοευαγγέλια)...63,
᾿ 411, 214) 4411.
A postrophus used in manuscripts...43, 95

Aquinas, ΤἼοηναϑ............... 363 n, 459
Arabic versions ......... 225, 281—2, 460
Arethas, Archp. on Apocalypse ...... 56,

209, 210
Argenteus, Cod. Gothicus ............ 274
Aristophanes of Byzantium ............ 40
Artes, HeretiG Jccveccecvevevv sonst 436, 437
Armagh, book of ......cc008 266 n. I, 459
Armenian Version ....... (ον νονον 276—277

INDEX II. 479

PAGE PAGE

Ascetic temper traced in manuscripts... | Bezae, Cod. Lat. (().....-6 κεν ννννννννενον 256
376 andn.1 | Bible, the Great (in English) ...... 450—7

Askew, Anthony...176n.1,18tandn, 213 | Bible, Hebrew, first printed............ 288

Alsen: valltteiOl.....rcvaccenbs τος =2- 176 n. 2
A\SSEMAMI τοῦτ Se) eecaeeenane 243, 247, 441
ΕΟ ας Lic Laws voncncooe o<-teeoneeee 245
Asterisks ........- 244, 248, 435, 438, 440

Athanasius, Patriarch ...... 49, 83, 446
Athos, Mount...79, 166, 186, 327, passim
ACHATUMDTECSIRE τ᾿ ἘΠ... soci πὴ es 133
Augustine, Bp....... 41 n, 64 nn. 2 and 3,
252, 259 and n, 261 and n,
266 n. 3, 386, 424, 442
Autographs of the N. T. ...2, 379—381

AGHTONT, Tettiscs me detheanteeeseness ewes 131
B and Y confounded ............... By ilk
Baber eH. ee... ceeeeeness 40, 81 ἢ, 84

Babington, Churchill, papyri...20, 417 n.
Banduri, Anselmo .........200+-+ 112, 220
Barbarous readings inadmissible ...418
Barberini, readings &c. 88, 119, 157, 314

PDEA VOD US| -jcts se hee συ τ 5 νον ΠΣ eer 28, 77
Barrow, Js. his posthumous works ...4
BOT EU J Ov, «mcttaes ate λοιμὸς TIQ, 149, 210

Barsalabi, Dion. Bp. 243 and n, 246, 441
Bartolocci, collation of Cod. B...88, 341

[BOR VBI! cooceecer CecerrCnpc 50050495 89 n.
Bositidess heretic)...cecesetnidctaben οἷοι ὅθεν 381
Basmuric fragments of N.T. ......... 273
BORER, TOP cac\ccesssiess ἡθρεο ἢ, sos 104, 187
Beaumont and Fletcher’s works ......... 4
Bede, the Venerable ............ 128, 443
Bengel, J. A....... 60 ἢ, 187 n, 329, 333

his N. Τὶ and collations, 322—324
—— his Canon ............... 371—2, 437

Bentleti Critica Sacra (Hllis, A. A.)...

320 ἢ. 2, 433 0. 2, 455 and n.

Bentley, Richard...7, 88, 106, 133, 158,

179, 207, 220, 253 n. I, 264,
266, 324, 344, 462

his projected N. T....319—321

Bentley, LROMGE). iso. 5.ce cove awesome ess 89
UBETR OTOL OD? 2. sxc soaideesewcnseceeoene: 315
Bernstetiy Ado esicvarnie Meo τος ὩΣ ΜΝΞ ΝΟΣ 242
Berita, Sire UeKieeee tes 453 andn
Bessarion, Jo. Cardinal............ 85, 164

Beza, Theod....17, 60, 96, 97, 98 and n,

103, 457 and n.
—— his N. T. reviewed

Latin, first printed ...... 262, 288
Bingham, J....53 0. 1, 64 n. 2, 138 1.1,
241 0.1, 387
Birch, Andy....... 86, 89, 115, 117, 157,
159, 164—5, 213 passim
his N. T. and collations...330—332
Blanchini, Jos. ...133 Ὁ, 140, 162, 207,
214, 219, 253 and n. 2, 256,

262, 264, 265 passim
Bloomfield, S. 7...85 n.2, 186, 187, 200,
207, 210, 223, 225, 405 ἢ,

Addenda, p. viii.
Bobbienses, Codd. Lat. (k. s.)...257, 258

Bode, Οὐ Aigiaia ne Rake esis see 279, 281
Bodleian, Cod. Lat. (bodl.)..........+. 265
BoernenstOy ΤΕΥ stew ee 135 D. 2, 153
Boetticher, P. Memphitic vers. ......272
(BOmoasits, Haale eee see ces eee eee 88
Book of Common Prayer............ II, 63
Boreel TORR i tee Rok Re secee 104
Bow#reny Sir ἐἼ τατον τον τις τίσ aes 202 Π.1
ΠΟΙ δ Wo, ἐπε τοςςῖ δος ἈΕΈΣ es 326, 370 n.
Breathings in manuscripts ...39—42, 86
Brixianus, Cod. Lat. (f)...........--+- 257
Burgess, Ite Pires πο: 196 n, 462
Blurgon), J..W. ccccoeee 85 n. I, 93 n.2
Burney, Ch. his manuscripts ...179, 180
ΒΟ Σ 5. Bpi sass tas. Meets 163
Buttmann, Phil. ...........: 264, 340, 342
CMVOSUIAUEY sniccante seu soe beet done Oe eee 241
Cambridge Texts, Greek Testament...17
Camps) Francis es ΔΝ δε ΕΣ δος νος sees IIo
Canons of internal evidence ...371—376

Canons of Comparative Criticism ...408

—9, 455
Capernaum, its orthography ......... 415
Capitals in manuscripts...44, 78, 86, 96
Carlyle; Sil. scenes 178, 180 n, 199
Caro, Hugo de Κ΄. Cardinal ...58, 153 n.
Carolinus, Cod. Gothicus ............ 275
Carpianus, Epistle to ...... 5O—52, 142,

290, 297
Carshunic characters ......+..+-+ 245, 282
Caryophilus, J. M. Bp. 157; 192,202n. 1
ΟΕ ΟΣ IGN aa sioeuseeecorecer ἔοι 381 n. I
COSMOD OFA Bie c0 is ocsevccsovasovessans 262

480.

PAGE

Castiglione, C. O. Count, Gothic palimp-
sest
Catherine, St, on Sinai...... 76, 174, 218
Cava, Naples, Cod. Lat. (cav.) ...... 265
Chaldee forms in Jerus. Syriac...245 nn.

Chapters, larger (κεφάλαια) ...... 48—50,
142, 207

Latin or modern ......... 58, 59

Chark; Wisiinte: 67 n, 149, 151, 433
Christian VII. of Denmark ......... 330
Christina, Q. of Sweden ...... 160, 217,
266, 275

Chronicon Paschale ............06+ 381 n. I

Chrysostom, Patriarch ...44, 64 nn. 1, 2,

278 n, 328, 349 Ὁ, 4:1

lean 600. OFS. tad. ibe ee 29 n. 3
Clarendon, Lord, his History............ 4
Clarke, 2. DNB. Wests 008 185 n. 2, 275
Claromontanus, Cod. Lat. (h)......... 257
Classes, six, of manuscripts ............ 65
Clement of Alexandria...49, 384 and n.1,

386 n.

of Rome...80, 83, 98, 402, 404n.
Clementine Vulgate...263, 267, 268, 320,

428, 438 n.
Colbert, Cod. Taat..(¢) ἐπ νος caeedesexee 256
COLETSOAGE; 8. Letts shee te ae code sates 380 n. 2
Colinaeus, S. his N.. Te ...202.. 0000000 2098
ODUM EAE Scania saunas totes ta antes 316
Columns in manuscripts ...... 25 and ἢ, 2
Comparative Criticism ......... 395 and n.

————— exemplified ...401
—404, 400-41

Complete copies of N. T. ...61 and n. 1.
Complutensian Polyglott...... 16, 87, 147,
190, 262, 284, 299, 443, 445
—_—_———_N. T. reviewed ...288—294
-- ——— collation of 349—368
Conflict of internal evidence
Confusion of uncial letters ...9, 376 n. 2
of vowels and diphthongs...10
Conjectural emendation inadmissible...
369 and n, 376 n. 2, 427

Continuous writing......... ΤΟ, 14,42; 44
Coptic language, &e. ......... 270, 395 n.
Corbeienses, Codd. Lat. (ff, ff*)...... 257
Correctorium, Bibl. Lat. ......... 153 and

Nn, 201, 262, 265
Correctors (5:opOwrat) ...... 46—7 and n,

383 n, 385 n, 301

INDEX II.

PAGE

Corruptions of text in second century...
385—7

Cosmas Indicopleustes ............ 56, 230
Cotton fr. of Genesis ...29 n. 1, 30—35
Cotton paper (bombycind) ......1.. 0060. 21
OOVELE SS Ον να αν ραν δον 151, 176, 189, 218
Cowper; B. Hit. 25.26 409 ἢ, 453, 454 1.
Core tH ((0)....... 155,177 and nn, 180n,

185 and nn, 199, 200,
206, 210, 222, 225

Οὐαί σεν χ3....... tee 269 ἢ.
Cramenyd An δε, εξς. ΑΝ τος ἢ 188, 455
Critical revision a source of various

PORMINGB i. Wcnchawet- teid id. Sa 15

Crito. Cantabrigiensis (Turton, T. Bp.)...
458 n, 459 n, 462

| <Curcellacus, S..N. Tice: 0m 313 and ἢ.
Cureton, W. Canon ...39, 115, 236, 425,
426

Curetonian Syriac version ...8 n, 236—
241, 400

Cursive letters ....0.d.c.ceeee00s 26, 36—38

Cursive manuscripts, list of ...142—225
Curzon, Hon. R. ......... 182, 210, 220
Cuza, Nich, de, Cardinal...154, 159, ΤΟΙ
Cyprian ...255, 342, 382 n, 387, 460—1
Cyril and Methodius, Apostles of the

SIAVONISDS.. . .<sesnsinessoneansaaayeretee 280
Cyril of Alexandria, Bp ...... 455 and ἢ.
Damasus, Pope ......se000 252, 260, 261
Darmarius, ANU. ....+..scvcesseves 381 ἢ.

Dated manuscripts...26, 36 and nn, 2,
3, 37 N. 2, 38 n. 1, 115, 397 0.

Davidson, S. cited...... 23, 64 n. 1, 103,
241, 378, 436, 445

De Dieu, L. Apocal. ὅθ. ...... 233, 442
Demidovian. Cod. Lat. (demid.) ...265,
328

Demosthenes) ac isnssersseecederes 385 n, 413
Dermout, J. his collations, 176, 189, 212
Des Advts, \...5s..s.dncnsekdiosdilabseemnmal 98

Designed alterations alleged in text...
16, 375, 381, 423

Dialectic forms ..:; 1. .ε ξέν εὐονεκοῦν 13) 417
Diocletian’s persecution ......... 271, 387
Dionysius, Bp. of Corinth ........+44. 381:
Divisions in N, Ty ....000.+.cceeceee 47—60
in the Vatican manuscript...

47—48, 58

INDEX II.

PAGE

Dobbin, Orlando...90 n. 3, 93, 148, 149,
150, 189, 313

AD OD ROWSIO dee wenn cies enen een οὐδεν 265, 280
- Donaldson, J. W. ...38, 321 n. 2, 413—
414 and n, 3

ὙΠΟ, ΜΠ) 5. ἄν EN by ΤΕ ΝΣ athe ie assis κὸν ketenes 417
Dorotheus, Bp. of Tyre ...193, 197, 297
Ducas, Demetrius............ 289, 290 ἢ. 2
Wucatiok WhOdes sere cecernceeeeee: 203 n.
BONE GOSPEL ~~. acenonaocesatencee eee 386

Ecclesiastical writers, dated list of, 286—7
Eclogadion defined
————— list throughout the year ...

68—74

Editions, primitive, of books of N. T....
16, 439

early printed and later critical
288—348

Egyptian versions of Ν, T. ...270—274
STD O OSE Ἐπ. το νι α 255, 301--2

Ellicott, C. J., Dean ...229, 376, 394 n,
450, 453 and n., Addenda pp. vii, vill

Elzvir editions of N. T....... 17, 303—4
Lmendation and recension distinguished,
343, 370

Emmeram, St, Cod. Lat. (em.) ...... 265
Engelbreth, W.F. (Basmuric)...164, 273
EphraemSyrus...94, 197, 230, 238, 239
Epiphanius, Bp., 44, 450.1, 62 n. 2, 386,
301 and ἢ, 435—6 and n.
Erasmus, Desid. ...... 88, 104, 143, 187,
200, 201, 202, 207, 293, 443

and n. 3, 444, 461.
—— his N. T. reviewed...294—298

Erlangen, Cod. Lat. (erl.) ............ 265
ΤΡ Το; dt, Ale eccccaccccsece: 253, 327, 380
Erpenius, T., Arabic vers. ...282 and τι.
BUANG USANA we ceceeecec senses ΤΊ 05. 211
Euclid, dated in Bodleian ...36 and n. 3
Eumenes, King of Pergamus............ 20

Lusebius, Pamphili, Bp...... 25 Nn. I, 50,
51 .1, 229, 230, 254, 270, 348,
381 and ἢ. 1, 382 ἢ, 383 and n,

387, 388, 431, 442
Eusebian canons ...50—53, 82, 83, 142,
207; passim
---τ------------ . their critical use ...434
and n. 2
Luthalius, Bp... 45, 54, 55, 57, 290

481

PAGE

---53, 58, 293,
297, passim
Buthymius Zigabenus...422 0, 431, 442

Euthalius, his Chapters

Extent of various readings......... 17, 314
OBC, SOM Gaz ab o.8o see eee acer nee 154
Families of manuscripts ...... 323 and n,

333—336, 338—340
Fathers, their silence of little weight, 422

Beul, «70... BPs) ee cnies: 271, 276, 284, 315
—— his N. T. 1675 ............ 313—315
Ferdinand of Valladolid............... 289
“ Five Clergymen,” the, cited ...... 447
J UGG ERS A OE τιν τες 94, 164, 257, 264
Floriacensis, Cod. Lat. (flor.)......... 265
Ford, Henry .........-» 89, 116, 210, 272
Foreign matter in manuscripts......... 56
Form of manuscripts ...........c.-.0.-00 24
Forgjuliensis, Cod. Lat. (for.) ...... 265,

2381 n. I

Fossatensis, Cod. Lat. (fos.)
πα 28) VevSiO leery ee 5. πνςς τπ τες τες 280
Friderico-Augustanus, Cod. 20, 27, 30—

35, 39, 42,43, 44, 47 and n, 76, 86 n.

Frisingensis, Cod. Lat. (7) .........4+- 259
ERROD CI I arse as salsa oaisldfo-inielsieciaines 205, 207

Fuldensis, Cod, Lat. (fuld.) ...264, 342

Gabelentz, H. C. de, Ulfilas............ 276
GOCION Md igh te sncinie ss τος eR εναταες 190, 315
ΘΟ ΘΝ . See hes 112, 122, passim
Gatien, St, Cod. Lat. (gat.) ......... 265
Gelasius GP Oper sens --ceesseu- ee 392 and n.
Geor giant version paesese ee eceeeeeeee 279

Gerhard ἃ Mastricht, N.T....152, 313 0,

319, 3771. 3
Germain, St, des Prez, 132, 137, 176, 257
Gibbon, Edw. ...274 and n, 458 n, 462
Glorgi;-AneA eee 116, 272, 273
Godeschalk, heretic: .:.:s:5:5.....20005- 122
Goeze on Complut. Bible...... 293 and n.
Goldhagen, Herm., N. T.
Gospels, ancient divisions of...47—53, 58
Gothic version of N. T....274—6, 395 n.
GROSLOMS PAR Wires ccccceseees.deededeeoeses 459
Grammatical forms, peculiar ...294, 416
GUCCI TEN Site. cts vocecs 373, 433 D. I, 451
Greenfield, W., Peshito N. T. ......... 234
Gregory Bar-Hebraeus ...... 231, 246—7

482 INDEX II.

PAGE PAGE
Gregory NYsSen — v.isavscecescsecestay Agim, | Haug, ὩΣ πος 86 n, 89, 93, 271 n, 338
Bee Pope :. πες 262 his’ system of recensions ...391—3
Griesbach, J. J....39, 49, 66, 139 and n, | Huish, Ales, .........s:0cc0eeeees 83, 453}.
166, 208, 213, 285, 301, 327, | Hutter, Elias, Peshito N. T. ...232, 443
329, 330, 373, 374, 375andn, | Hyperides, papyrus fragments of.........
377) 393 τι, 463 passim 30—35; 36, 41, 42) 44

———— his N. T, and collations...332 .
—336 | Iberian version............csescsrseeseeee 279
Guelferbytani, Codd. Lat. (gue.) 258, 265 | Ignatius...........- 379 and n. 2, 445, 455
CHRD AE EG ies ΜΎΣΤΑΣ ΚΤ 245 | Ihre, Jo., Gothic N. De c..cse.seseem 276
Gutbier, Giles, Peshito N.'T. ...233, 443 | Indiction ...........scec--ones 37 τ, 183 n.
ΠΟΙ Σ, TOGE νει Ss ἘΠ: 201, 292 5.1 | Ingoldstadt, Cod. Lat. (ing.) .......+- 265
Ink, ancient, its composition ......... 23
ἐν πολ ἐδ βεβουχ oie ἐς 181, 199, 206 Ped KAt is dedswtexe 24, 138 and n, 2

Haitho, King of Armenia ............ 277
Harkel, Thomas of ...231, 242, 244, 248
Harleian, Codd. Lat. 1772, 1775 (harl.)
265

Harley, R., Earl of Oxford............ 131
Harmonies of the Gospel History, 11, 50
Hearne, T.
Hebrew idioms softened...............44. 13
Hebrew (or Jewish) Gospel ...... 125,442
Heinfetter, Hermann
Hellenistic dialect ............... 412, 413
Hentenius, Jo. (Louvain Lat. Bible) ...
263, 312

Herculamean papyri ...20, 26, 29, 30—

35, 38, 41, 42, 44, 86
όσα, Professor ...........000se0e08: 105
ποι ΠΤ τς 28, 77
Hermonymus, G., of Sparta ... 144, 152
Hppodoius .. « ἐδυδλεν δ bs 21, 22 ἢ, 374
Hesychius of Egypt...... 389, 392 and n.

Mieronymus or Jerome...23 andn, 25n. 3,
228n, 252, 260 andn, 261 and
n. 1, 266, 356 τ, 357 0. 2, 377»
380 n. 1, 388, 389, 390 and n. 1,
391, 392, 428 andn, 431, 442,

448, 460 n.
Hilary cited......... 342, 390, 428 and n.
TDG ΟΝ ΑΝ δ... .....«ὑδοκέςο φεϊαζωδ ον ewes 454

Homer and his manuscripts...4, 30—35,
39) 40, 00 π, 2, 115) 416, 417 ἢ,

Homeotelewton ...........0ὁ«οννοον 9, 78, 374
TOOT Woy MO OOIL axons iho n ive ee 128
Hope for Biblical criticism in England,

348
Horne, T. H., Introduction ...... 62 n.1,

275, 347, 458 n,

Internal evidence considered ...369—378
Interpolations, various readings arising
GPOMY πον eee 7, 386
Jonisms in ND. ποιοῖς eee 417
Tota, ascript and subscript, 38, 39, 139
and n, 294) 296, 297
Treneus ...314 0. 1, 342, 379 n.1, 382
—3 and n, 385, 399 n, 404 ἢ,

420, 424 bis, 435, 443 and ἢ. 2

dritt, TA. sik Ae eee 256
Trish monks at St Gall...124, 136 and n.
2, 258

Irregular constructions softened ...... 12
Ttacisms...... 10, 79, 376, 448, 449 and n.
Italics of English version ............ 456
Jacobi, St, Cod. Lat. (jac.).........00 265
Jacobson, W., Canon......... 81 n, 152}.
James, St, collation of his Epistle in the
early editions ον νον ἂν τ ταν 301---ὦ
James, T., Bellum Papale ............ 263
Jerusalem copies of N. T....... 47, 125 n,
161, 431

Jerusalem Syriac version ...245—6, 441
Jewish sacred books...........2.+ 3140. 1
John, Bp. of Seville, Arabic version ...
281, 282

FURS, τὴν ...,,.εὐ 8. . 276, 313
Justin Martyr ...... 386 n, 424, 431, 435
FUDAN cas suis Sa vdnctbeRuian τος 412
ζωονηδοῖϊ, Τὶ Wad να veabis odetey cuss 282
Ἰωάννης, orthography Of..........s000 415
Karkaphensian Syriac version ...246—8
Kaye, J.; Bp. «..... 380 n. 2, 386 n, 460
ΕΣ ΜΝ 207, 210, 463

INDEX II. 483
PAGE PAGE
Kipling, T., Dean, 98, 99, Addenda p. vii Macedonius, Patriarch.......-++:+++++++ 455
Knappe, G. C., Ν.ΊΎΤΟὐνννννννννενον 370 n. | Madden, Sir 2. ......-++ 20, 40, 301 0.
ΚΕ ΟΙ; Fel Ares 30-0 113, 192, 258, 275 | Magee, W., Archp. .....:.ceseeseeeeeees 374

Kuenen, A. and Cobet, C. G., Vat. ΠΣ
376 n. 2, 3850, 418, Addenda p. viii

TRG Sten ΠΣ τ ΘΠ 83, 04; 110, 409 n.
-- his manuscripts ......--.--- 318
Lachmann, Ο........Ψ.. 17, 289 and n, 264,

286, 370, 378, 436
———— his N.T. and system reviewed

340—344
Lamy, John...... 163, 172, 181, 199, 206
Land, P.N., onCuretonian Syriac, 240 n.
Lanfranc, Archp. --- τι Ὁ τλτλσντλνετσσσσον 262
Laodicea, Council of ........-++++-: 80, 83
Laodiceans, Epistle to ........-.-- 127; 22.
Wasco, Ae Te τ... πτπτ το λπλτοστοττο στο: 04
Latinising, charges of...... 128, 293, 326
Laud, W., Archyp..........0+--s0-s0ss000 129
Laurence, R., Archp. ......-.- 335 and τ.
Laurentian Library at Florence...... 162
ie BOM DUE eeeercen cas eencccreeeaerre ec 186
Le Fevre, Guy, Peshito N.T.......... 232
Leaning uncial letters......... 36 and n. 1

Lectionaries of N.T....11, 60, 62—65,

142, 211, 373, 433) 438» 430
————— of Old Testament...64, 73,

212 n.
Lee, Edw., Archp. .....-+1::sesese00 297
Lee, Sam., Peshito N.T....... 234, 282 n,

429, 445, 459
Leo X, Pope .....- 289, 291 and nn, 295
Linen Paper (charta) .........022.02ee0 ee 21

Lipsienses, Codd. Latt. (lips. 4, 5,6)...265
Lloyd, C., Bp. (N.T. Oxon.) ...... ἘΤῚ ἘΝ

Loebe, T., Ulfillas ........᾿......- 276
Loftus, Dudley ......c0.ceccveereee veers 279
Dong, G.....seesecveccreeseencenseecencceees 407
ΟΡ, πἘΠποὋἘΠΕΠ’ οΨπΠἘοΠΓ,ΕιᾳἘοΕῃπἘἔΕέΕο “11:5 326
Lucar, Cyril, Patriar. ......... 79, 282 n.
Lucas, F., Brugensis ...88, 153 n, 263,
265, 312
Lucian of Antioch ...... 389, 392 and n.
Lucifer of Cagliari ........2-::0eeeerees 342
Lumoviensis, Cod. Lat. (ζει...) ....++++ 205
Lye, Ed., Gothic N.T.........++--s100e 24

Mace, D. or W., his N. T. ....s-seee 321

Mai, Angelo, Cardinal ...40, 86, 9o—92,
140, 258, 275, 377 2. 2 447
Majoris Monasterii, Cod. Lat. (mm.), 265

Mangey, Thy ...-cecceeeeeeneeeeenees 183, 213
Marcion, heretic .........+++0++e000++ 381—2
Marcosti, apud Tren, ......+-+++0ee0e+ 424
Marianae, Cod. Lat. (mar.).....-+-++++ 2605

Marsh, Herbert, Bp...99, 159, 156, 187;
293, 300 τι. I, 301, 458 ἢ, 462
Marshall, Th. ...271, 276, 280, 314, 425
Martianay, T. ......--0---++ 257, 258, 265
Martin, St, Tours, Cod. Lat. (mé.), 265
Massmann, H. F., Ulfilas ........+++- 275
Materials for writing ......--.+-+- 7.20—23
Ματθαῖος, orthography of .........--. 415
Matthaei, Ch, F....63, 117, 139, 132, 136,
166, 193, 213, 214, 265, 286, 332, 452
—— his N.T. and collations, 327—329
Medicean manuscripts at Paris,...g4 and
n. 2, 147, 195, 204

Meermann’s manuscripts ...158 and n,

197, 219
Memphitic version of N.T. .....- 271—2
Menology defined .......--+.+0+1++5 65, 142

—— list of throughout the year, 74—5
Michaelis, J. D.,...66, 156, 293, 327»
329, 419, 443 HT

Mico, Abbate .......+:ceeeeeseeeeeees 88, 210
Middleton, T. F., Bp....14, 295 0-1, 327)

419, 426 n
Miesrob, Armenian ......-.1+--2ees00+ 276

Mill, J....49, 53, 57, 66, 104, 191, 223;
230, 254, 262, 271, 276, 280,
282, 284, 292, 298, 299, 300,
304, 313, 319, 430 π, 444, 462,

passim.
Ἐς Ξε ΝΠ iccopnocc 315— 318
list of his manuscripts ...... 317
Millingen, Dre «..Ὁνννεν νον νννν εν eee nee ees 181
Mingarelli, J. A., Thebaic fragments, 272
Miracles sparingly resorted to ...... I—2
Missy, Caesar de, 147, 180, 181, 223, 224
Mittarelli, J. By ..1..eseceeeeee ees 174, 218
Mixed uncial and cursive letters...112 ἢ.
Moldenhawer, D. G....... 165, 213, 214,
292 n.1, 330, 331; 33% 335
Monacensis, Cod. Lat. (4) --- 5565 67 5771: 258

484 INDEX ΤΙ.
PAGE PAGE
Montfaucon, Bernard de...... 19540, 54, | ῬΡαοϊποϊούαιδ᾽ν.δ.. νος δος τευ ας, πὰς seen 271
63, 105, 112, 138, 146, 154,162, | Palatine Elector’s Library ......... 160 n.
176, 182, 200, 212, 216, 388 Palatinus, Cod. Lat. (6) .........-.000s 256
Moore, John, Bp. ......... 149 and n, 180 | Palimpsest described ...............e000++ 22
Moses, Chorenenst8 22.8. ssc de0.0cse000s 256 | = double... eee 112
Moveable type, supposed cases of, 111, 275 — Syriac fragment............ 246

Muhammedan sacred books ... 314 n. 1
Minter, F., Egyptianfragments, 272, 273
Muralt, Edw. de ...67, 9°, 178, 206, 222,

225

N, abridged form of ...43, 111, 416 n. 1
N ἐφελκυστικὸν or attached ...293, 413

passim

Wattan; awh. 28k. es. EA 60
Nazareth, its orthography ............ 415
Uviehotas; Bir A... eee & 201 n. I
Nitrian desert, manuscripts from ....115
Nolan, Fred.....i...... 266 n.2, 388, 446
Notation of manuscripts of N.T., 65—7,
317

Notitia, Cod. Sinaitici (Tischendorf) ...
28, 76, 77, 121, 125, 124, 181,

220, 346, 401, 423, 452
Number of extant manuscripts of N.T...
4, 225, Addenda p. viii
Number of various readings estimated...

3,7
OG 244, 248, 435, 438, 440
Obsolete style of Old Latin version ...256
Oecolampadiue ......00.04.c0cccckccnssees 296

Ocecumenii, ὑποθέσεις to N.T., 57, 191, 201
Old Latin version, its history and cha-
TAOUR Ween tytecescces ee ae: 252—260
Omissions, various readingsarising from, 7
Order of words, variations in
Order of books in N.T. ...48, 61—2, 77,
80, 131 n, 247, 290
Order of Gospels ............ 62, 256, 275
Order of St Paul’s Epistles...48, 62 and
n. 2, 77, 80, gon, 201
Origen...... 109, 266, 285, 335, 342, 348,
377, 384—5, 399, 392, 393, 402
n. I, 424
ERORADUA 77. 1.2... 2 τοῖν esses 244, 388
Orthodox readings not πη ρτο 16... 375

and n.
Orthography of manuscripts of N.T., 294
ὍΣΟΝ, ὑὸν" ....0..π eect ets 314 and n, 2

Pamphilus, martyr, 47 and n, 54, 188,
192, 266, 388, 390, 431

Paper, cotton and linen.................- 21
Pappelbawm, “6. ...2...20s+e0esconees 156
Papyrus, manufacture of............ 21----2
Paradiplomatic evidence ...376—7, 448
Particles omitted or interchanged...... 13
Pauline Epistles, ancient divisions of...
53, 58

PONTUR eC Ae etna een 208, 257
Pearson, Johm, ΒΡ... eee 455
Pelagia, St ...74 and n. 3, 216, 246, 441
Pericopae of Church-lessons ............ τᾷ
of Bengel τος νυ ΕΣ 60

Perste versions’ ΕΝ. IT. .-2-.,-esee-e os 281
Perugian. Cod. Lat. (per.) ............ 265

Peshito Syriac version, its history and

character. .........+.. 229—236, 424 τι.
its chief manuscripts ......... 235
Peter of Alexandria, Bp.
Petermann, J. H., Georgian version...279
Phileleutherus Lipsiensis ............ 7, 319

Philodemus περὶ κακιῶν .........42- 26, 29
Philoxenian Syriac version ...109, 227,
233, 241—244, 435, 441, 447 passim

Philoxenus or Xenaias, Bp. ...241, 242
Pickering, Wo cc nanc-+s+secbanteeeeenee 180
PRET UUB |, 0 cavdess toa seconea een Τὴ 266, 390
να τ shee tae 281
PUG τι oa cansvus oussdyes ssc eees eee 44
Pinon tld 11... ies εάν ον 134, 137
PUQUERS Dy onc st essen teeters 271, 276, 277
Plantin Peshito N. T............. 232, 233

Plato, dated manuscript of in the Bod-
leian, 36 and n. 3, 110, 118, 185 n.2

Platt, T, P., Adthiopic N. Τοῦ 279
Pins, C.S., Nat. Hidtlceneaeee 22
Pococke, Edn, ...:ssscnssesen 233, 242, 281
PolyOuud....cccccunvavecdeauterans ten v antes 413
Polyglott, Antwerp (Plantin) ...232, 265
— Bagaver’s v5.55 4.5.5. 234, 282 ἢ.

Complutensian (see Complu-
tensian)
London (see Walton)

ἤν“. σὰ.. eae a

INDEX II,

PAGE
Poli GOT EE AMISH. ἀν πη. sie 7.2... 232, 282
Porson. diesssnteetenn: 458 n, 462 and n.
Porter, J. SCOtt......0:0-0s 246, 338 and n.
UP ROMMUPOSTOLOSI a aas-tatadeecusc ena 63, 211
(PUMABUUS Sas eee eee 259, 342, 463
Printing, invention of ......... 3521, 262
Psalms) of Solomon, C)...- 0 deen cens 80

Punctuation of manuscripts, &c. 42—3,

86, 95, 294, 391 n.
Purple and gold manuscripts

Quotations from Old Test. in New...... 12
Quotations from Fathers, their use and

defects. ......... 283—6, 314, 316, 404
Rabanus Maurus, Archp. ...... 134, 137
Ragusio, John de, Cardinal ............ 103
Rapheleng, F'., N. T., Greek and Syr....

IQI, 232
Raymundn, I, Bapt.ccsccscse-eeeoes sees 282
Received Text in its various forms col-

ated’ <cedeanedacateaas seve deat 304— 311
Reed used for writing.........0........+.: 24
Regii, Codd. Lat. Paris (reg.)......... 265
Reiche, J. G....194, 195, 204, 209, 4051.
ῥήματα OF ῥήσεις .......4. 54, 57and τι, 58
Rettignelny OF Macrsaectesstcenctees 122, 136
ΑΣΑ ΡΝ ΡΟ 143, 144, 207
Rhedigerianus, Cod. Lat. (ἢ) ......... 257
Rheims, Slavonic Evangelistarium ...280
Rhodiensts, Cod. ........0.s0e0s000 190, 201
Rhythm, cause of various readings ...377
Ridley, Gloucester..............0«-- 243, 441
δ ρα; ΟΠ 658: ΠΡ ἘῈ πεν ster tee 277
ini. Oop tina: enemas 164, 203, 213
Rolled manuscripts or scrolls............ 25
PR ΒΟ ΠΕ ΤΟΥΘΗΗΟΙΣ. τς «Ὁ cee cle siclace teat 2351.
Rosetta stone, account of...... 27, 30—35
ROWE SIE UT iat ascent Ἔδει 79, 147
Rozanide Mb bater..ssmesteassecares το] 265
Rulotta, Abbate ............ 89, 320 n. 2
Russells At TEs IR saatedes ase sce onecsiees 153
ϑαδαύτον, {ΞΡ εν ἐς ΠΕ ΤΩΣ 253 and n. 2, 257
Sahidic or Thebaic version of N. T....272
SOMES PAGNINUS 505 520000en0 se ἀπ νει: 59
(S101) | faeee Gn OB RMT APE ΠΡΟ acca 265
Sangallenses, Codd. Lat. (δ. 2. 0. p. san.)

258, 265

Sangermanenses, Codd, Lat. (71, g°)...257

485

PAGE

Schaaf, Ch. and Leusden, J., Peshito
Ng Disdd. τ ae eae ae 233,443
CHCWEL, SIs, Lic wsersenpaca sence erence 257
Schimellen; Jin Al: Stee ee eee 280

Scholz, J. M. A....57, 66, 67, 108, 168,

177, 194, 203, 209, 215, 224, 301,
416

his N.T. andcollations, 336—340
ΘΟ δ ION nop orsasone 83, 257, 330n, 344
Schwartze, M. G., Memphitic N. T....272
Scott, C. B.
Scrivener, 1. H., his collations...17, 67,
134, 178, 198, 206, 210, 218, 220—1,
234, 340 5. 1, 395 nN. 1, 400
SEMLEM Ὁ]. ΔΘ ΞΕ ΕΙΣ 129. 323, 326, 333
Septuagint version...27, 29 n. 1, 31—32,
470, 412—416
SepUlyed dy TD AQociwerasi.sevincemuanceen MO 87
Servius Tullius, his classes ............ 334
Shakespeare's dramas
Shape of uncial letters used to determine
their date
Sharp, J., Archp.
Silvestre, M. J. B., Paléographie Uni-
verselle...19, 23, 36n. 2, 40, 86, 105,
213, 217
Sinaiticus, Codex, its internal character,
389
Sionita, Gabriel, Peshito N. T....232—3,
282
Sixtus V, Pope, his Latin Bible, 263, 429
Slavonic version.

INGS .....sccceeeesecsecscccccceccssseccens 15
ISOPROCLES) Mem stenlerietiteneeeeece rents 414, 0. I
Specimens of five Syriac versions of

ΝΙΝ Sie Ree too 248—251
—_—-—-— of Latin versions ...267—269
Speculum, Cod. Lat. (m).............4. 258
Spelling, variations in manuscripts ...13
Sbeunanug ers Baa erwioureuenet nota ene eee 219
Stephens, Henry ...... 60, 300, 301, 302

Stephens, Robert ...17, 57, 60, 97, 187,
190 n, 207, 263

his N. T. reviewed ...299— 302
—-— manuscripts used by him ...... 97
Nn. 2, 299—301, 458

Stichometry in manuscripts...44—46, 54,
57—59; 77> 78, 86, 99> 108, 117, 123,
128, 130, 138, 155, 208, Addenda p. vii

486 INDEX II.
PAGE PAGE
Stiernhielm, G., Gothic N. T. ...... 276 338, 343, 372, 414 and n. 3, 415,
Stops, their power varies with their posi- 4420, 450, 452 passim
BAD ἘΝ ΡΤ ΤΡΕΡΎΕ. Π Ὁ 42, 104 | Tischendorf, his N.T. and critical la-
BERT G5 ΕΝ ΟΠ ΜῈ ὅθ᾽ 243, 282 DOWIE .covpncna ewesewaeaswans 344—346, 408
δε ED SE SCL, DERE ECOR TIC gases πλακῶν δος 48—50, 58, 142, 402 n. 2
Stunica, J. Lopez de...190, 289, 296, 461 | Toletanus, Cod. Lat. (tol.) ..........+ 264
Style of different writers of N. T. varies, | Traditores............csccsecsecseceeeeeens 387
2, 413 | Draheron, Philip..civccdesccve 152, 420 π.
Style, change of, no decisive proof of | Travis, G., Archd., 301, 458n, 462 and n,
Βρπεϊ ΗΝ Π6ΒΑ Aap atikd Joes ee 431 | Tregelles, δ. P...16 n. 1,17, 37 0.1, 90
Stylus used for writing .............00608 24 and n. 3, 126, 145, 246, 368 n. 1,
Subjectivity «....««ννονς 370, 378, 419, 446 378, 384n. 1, 393 ἢ, 416 n. 2, 423,
Subjunctive future.....ccccceceee 449 and n. 426, 437, 447, 449 and n, 453 1, 455,
Subscriptions to books of N, T, ...... 54 456 passim

to manuscripts...47 and n,
125 and n, 138, 168

Suacer, J. Οἱ ..... 44, 65 n, 72, 83, 114
POE «οἱ νον ants 2iaise<sineniamancaas ata 401
Sulct or ϑιεἶοα............ 53n. 1, 138m. 7
MYLDUMNG) Eee < χες: pandteswenie eaee 209, 313
Synaxarion defined......... 65 and n, 142
——— list of, throughout the

OBL icc sian ΠΥ, 1. 0 see 68—74
Synonymous words interchanged ...... 12
Syrian Christians, sects of ...... 230, 241
Syriac language .........++ 220, 412, 413

Table of ancient and modern divisions of

PN is ies cle mioalsaaddsascdessasitanassoh aul 58
“Παλαιο; Bday ssveeectens cecnain- aces 4590
ROU: i cxuncuuinaneves chs «sftoetace 11, 48, 50
Taurinensis, Cod. Lat. (taur.) ...... 265
US THE RE 7 RR OOR RR Oy 16 and n, 2
ΠΡ ΤΠ 385 n.
Mero; Gicll ΒΡ τι. ποις νον cavevetsase 50
Tertullian ...... 49, 380, 404 n, 438, 460

Textual criticism and its results ... 4—6
Thebaic (see Sahidic)

AUT TT ls) TOP POCPEER UR ET LL cee 79, 80, 82
TAD OTSTUS oxnanrnntenpateawddesganentve 44
Theodora, St ...... 74 and n. 2, 216, 441
Theodore of Tarsus, Archp............. 128

Theodore the calligrapher ...37 n. 2, 166
Theodoret, prologues to Epistles...... 290

Theophrastus cited ...........ὁοννονοοον 22 0.
Thorpe, Benj., Anglo-Saxon Gospels, 280
TRUCYORAES .. te decWuvatiwan etd ogee 411,432

Tischendorf, Aen. F. C., 17, gon. 1, 181,
220, 225, 256, 281, 304, 320 n, I,

—— his N.T. and critical labours...346

—348

his scheme of Comparative Criti-

Clam. aH ah Re 396—404
Tremellius, Im., Peshito N.T...232, 233,
302, 429

Trent, Counciliobs: 42. 22 Fees te eee 262
Trevirensis, Cod. Lat. (trevir.)......... 265
Trinity College, Cambridge, Cod. Lat.
(ὑῶν)... iscse dees A otter 265
Trost, Martin, Peshito N.T ......... 232
Trnyerosay TOR caca's.-. eee eee 150
Taychaens Osi esse ess: coateeseeaeae 330, 331
Tymicum defined ........ccscssessteuvent 114

Uffenbach, Ζ. Ο. ...... 139, 155, 100, 201

Ulphilas or Ulfilas, Bp.............+6 274
Uncial letters .....0:1...000sandeseeadses 9, 25
Uncial manuscripts, list of, 76—141, 211
Uppstrim, And., Gothic N.T.......... 276
Uscan, Bp., Armenian Bible ......... 277

Ussher, James, Archp....98, 131, 149,
150, 233, 312

Valentinus, heretic,.....s..+s0ssdesesss 381
Valla, Lawrentius ......... 153, 190, 207
Variations, when a ground for suspicion,

426, 438, 442, 443, 459

Various readings defined .-..........++. 3

different classes of them ...7--16
Vaticanus, Cod. Lat. (vat.)........0+6 266
Velesian readings......++++++ 156, 312, 458
Vellum, manufacture of .......ἁὁὑνννννον 20
Vercellensis, Cod. Lat, (@).......+0++ 256
Vercellone, C......+++ ΟἹ, 92, 291 and n. 2
Vermilion paint (xwvdBapts) ...... 51, 140

487

INDEX II.

PAGE PAGE
Veronensis, Cod. Lat. (b).............+. 256 | White, Joseph ...... 243 and n, 441, 447
Verses, modern in N.T ............ 58, 59 | Widmanstadt, Albert, Peshito N.T....

Versions of N.T., their use and defects...

226—9g
—— their date and relative value...227
Villiers,G., Duke of Buckingham...282 n.

Vindobonensis, Cod. Lat. (?)............ 257
ΑΓ Gon toeneenee 44
Vulgate, Latin version, its history, &c....

260—269

Wake, Wm., Archp....152 n, 182, 198,

221, 225, 390

Walker, John ...... 183, 184 n, 320, 321

Walton, Brian, Bp....66, 98, 131, 156,

230 N, 233, 254, 262, 263 n, 265, 278,
279, 281, 282

his N. T. and collations...312—313

Wechelian readings .............s.00.0+- 312
Werner of Nimegquen..........+- 00-000 88
Westcott, B. F....... 155, Addenda p. vii
Wetste, Caspar..........-.. 183, 188, 208

Wetstein, J. J...66, 79, 83, 88, 95 and n,
g8 n, 105, 156, 157, 243, 292, 298 n,

301, 303, 319, 372 and n, 462
—— his N.T. and collations...324—327
PYRCEL0 Chee> Al 00%: cwcconmsnle Stes eee 281
PUI AOC. srcwavovocevath wen eee 316

231, 234, 429
Wilkins, D., Memphitic N. T....271,
273 Ὁ, 330

Winchelsea, Earl of (1661) ...... 155, 212
Wiseman, Nich., Cardinal...go, 196 n,
234, 247, 255, 258, 458 n.

Woide, C. G....81 n, 83, 128, 272, 326,
410 ἢ, 453 n.

Wolff S080) ss cecicistieadewscesceseee eee 234
OUR ΡΤ -- τού, 139
Wordsworth, Christ., Canon ...15, 95 n,

179, 372, 373 0, 376, 448, 450

Ximenes, Fr. de Cisneros, Cardinal...288,
289, 294, 296

Year, ecclesiastical, of Greeks ......... 93
Του, PR aUTiClerrrccr reese 83, 98, 453 2
Zacagni, L. A., 86,88, 138 n.1, 190, 218
Zahn “ΟἹ, Gothic ΜΕΤ ον. 276
Zoega, G., Cat. Codd, Copt....116, 271 n,

272, 273
Zohrab, Armenian Bible ............++. 277

INDEX IIL.

Of Texts of the New Testament illustrated or referred to in this

volume.

aN EE λοι
PAGE PAGE
Matthew is’ sown. 237n. 2, 239 | Matthew xxi. ΤΙ oo... eeeeeeeeee 415
χϑι. ἀν ee 387, 3001, 419 425. (νυ νος ccicdb «peep δου ΔΝ 13
Ἤν Ὁ ΡΜ Ρ 415 ὯΒ-- 31, πο τον 372, 390, 426
oy EO ΉΡ ΣΕ Ἐς ΠΥ σΘ 386 n oy en re ΟΣ 12
ΚΤ ΜΗ τ ANY 415 ΧΧΊΙ, α4-ατό ..........0e. dee 9
ὌΠ BE Ir 35---15, 221}, 374, 388, 433
ως χανε, ἐξ cee 8, 377, 39° EXIVA IS? si25-.3e buns bewle ΡΝ τὰ
DOE a es OPE Oe ΞΕ 12 36 t..Sisoeldb bate 390
Dn A ed te: 8, 349, 421 3 Seis. £25 55. ἘΔ ee 372
Wile ΔΌΣ. ΣΟ coe daet a σξοῦαν 12 σαν δ a sxe. ἴσας μα 12
ὉΠ OM 14 25 | eS ΕΝ 10, 435
a8 hha SRR ES 12 EVIL winncandhnateiiesie 12, 335 Ἐν
ΣΕΥ ev eect a 228 ὙΠ΄ 15
διό, ον σχνου δ nat occas II, 228 ΡΠ. . 343
ΟΝ ΚΡ ΠΡ 15 ΒΒ τς νς ςὐτουιάνε ἘΣ II, 428
BE ΡΥ ΠΟ II BO rick wdelacaiinone ace wee 4340. £
1 EE TT PY IT ΟΝ 61 πὸ 14
AD be shotih vaste odes dee 12 ERVIN LQ ccc. 30stsnc.ceeeeee 461 n.
BGO’ cacccksesnscade eee 12 PA ar BG. 1: nda ane dane 15
ΜΡ earn stae awe eae 415 Dicassiabeess eaten 415
NRE, PONE ACE ΠΑΡΑ τὸ 9 ΑἹ avinines-s eee 415
AE (RN AA, OY) fe. cdcpes ons 293 Ἷ ΤΠ er Il
Kn Geers en caesar aw ae 10 ἜΤ πΠ 14
KUL Bi Bapdcoteshuccascaccersereskes 10 ἜΡΗΜΟΝ Ὅς, 0 Γ΄ 10
AO. casoxstesihosnveaegeteaeers 12 ΗΠ 415
ΠΤ ΓΤ Ὁ ΡΤ II Vo: 14......ἐἀ(πτκκοκονςν ον εὐ αν ΝΣ 9
SWE asi ῥέννευυα Shots ocaeee τὸ 18 4δ.., ιν bane cee Ν 417
ΒΟ τρανοῦ, αὐ νον ΝΑ 12 VILL 2... εἰθόκτννς sans00esn eee 12
=p eA eee are e 434}. 2 π΄ 13
valmbsivads δνν κι αναιουβκκιιν dh 406 σ, “8, Ὧ0. ὠμοῦ 434 n. 2
ean ntihits aad ae 434 n. 2 i558, cavinsepe tee kee 423
KVL AS vdtand Bip ainvsvechs. 67 ἢ ΠΤ ΡΤ II
τ ΑΝ eee ii ca cekdaiceees 16, 422 BATA Aas sia a cy nis dca Ir
πϑι ΝΥΝ seis Caan εν νὰ 385 84. cenepeiyaushacsnes <oeee 16
0 Oy SES POT ree 8, 387, 425 ee Υ Ν ΠΝ ὁ 418

INDEX ITT. 489

PAGE PAGE

Markee ον ΚΤ ΡΟ ΓΔ το JObni vile ΟΣ ον τε δεν ake Ὁ πε. -"- 372
ΟΣ cites hese es $e) vil. 53—villl. 11...7, 80n., 390, 439

αν ca cectqeodonan aa easeacnc II KWAI, ρος omens 4401}.
SVs) Qa = 2Ols ce secisneent 7, 390, 429 Bic daemdabulee seacoast: 449
Duke. BS4s Ah cases ees ἐς, ἀΐξας 412 n. KIRS, LA.) siestcodscswade che vebeeeeeees 15
Ae esac Meee ucnarocete 435 DA, nclscaant teen wants II, 428
Oe το τος ΗΝ ΤῸ ΠῚ 202 Johny xx, ) 905.3 las cx τ eee 439

Heh? Wee see scaesacee τό, 152, 303 Acts fil, ἀρ δοσος θυ tesco 415
ΓΕ ΠΗ, 415 Eee ῸὖᾷϑΡϑΠΡὃὋ||....} 10

πὶ στ πο τς ποτ, 386 and n. Vise il adatciotecie τὺ τ᾿. - 417
ἀν, LO) actataeea- eect Ὁ τ 415 5A Os Cee AR Ne 412
lis) Gascobbosesoseacee goosdaue: 12 VATE 2 Over συ δα: ΕΣ ee 376n. 2

Wa. BO seebreeciee tees ΟΝ ΤΙ FER He Be 3 4 12
BAG) τι τπιτ ἘΠ ΠΣ’ 13 VATA: « oot cust sansa ἀκ ἢ ΤΠ 412 n.

BB) cvhdeadeas cp ates + II viii. 37...8, 373, 387, 3990+» 443
VAlgsil eGeeppnoooscaccendasccaegu20 433 ἄς: τευ Cece ee icerocenbe 12, 297, 373
WE, Bil nc Seenebeosnoascbecsso5NBee II ἡ Re RENE OS Sader er once 9
ὙΠΟ 5, τὴν tgneeocsancanss0655 Hoce 401 5 AOU eT 376 n. 2
BY cnnnceececceseeceeesncnecss 401 ἘΠῚ τ πε ἘΠ 399 n.

218) caagnconosshoacosoppanoc8 401 SRV AOS ΣΉ, Π᾿ Ὑ 65: 13

5. ΑΕ θαι κ τ ππιςοβ 390, 401 VIE S/ ssavdagsnswcvscesaceteneetars 12

BD) ost actson πΠππιττ--- 402 es ted δ δον ϑσει τὸ το ΣΕ Σ τό

BY. Beaaecetnew meters 402, 406 D Ane sa Ξε τος ἐπε δον ΕΣ 12

AG! ete: Bhatensecesosgaaces Το ΧΧ11 ARs 50. cco cancdsateeesecee sees 14

ἘΠῚ 7 FARSI ED etree 402 KOTOR sire eee 16, 375, 444

0 J Se SCO SERED. ECO COBO τισιν II RVI 145 Dbl ss cscecasees 12, 207, 373

Dt ponoonebosopcendsoceagecea: 402 KRW IS, ἸῸ πο, σατο φορ κυ σου, εν essen 417

ΧΙ ἢ .---. {πρῖνος τεσ τς 422 ΟΠ - 370 ἢ
ἸΩΣ ΤΡ Το ocawacnansice 9 Tis τες οὐροροιῖς Ἐπ δεν τ βου ας 88

ἘΠῚ ΒΗ πὴ ππῆτΠρΠΠΠ πὴ 14 ἜΝΟΤΩΣ Use TW) coaeseren ie sae arotaes eee 417
RAG. NO aces bade 416n. 1 Στ A caucvcuenseratacnosmes 15, 447
χῖν- S10" ΠΕ ΤΕΣ ἔπνεε 425 Valls Εἰ Σὲ svatom sasinosueeecstecoeeceoeecs 8
Ἐν AS) and non ooauaobnorodanoosaucccds 9 TON ΠΡ ππ .. 418
ΠΡΟΣ τε το δον, ἘΠΕ τ , τος το τς 417 KAS DDS. ἐπ ταν υκορμις ας τ τ - Τα: ΣΤ Σ Ι4

SEVIL QO τον λοοἐούθο ΠΕ Ὲ οὐ τς ἢ soaaees 9 ΤΡ 376n. 1
πνεῖ 10) epsococsuoncebacoGssOAgnes 423 Ὁ σον ΡΥ ΡΥ ΟΥ̓ ΡΠ 12
RUA sae cvenctase 435, 430n. RLV.) Nye teicdtbe se stdvechuaes 376n. 1
KIL 37 es Seas το τῆνος sas νόος 12 1 COPS LV. 7 sensed codes ae scnseascescscneas 417
25. YN τον 215: 8, 200, 43: τ 376 n. τὶ

AQ ΡΣ ΣΎ τ δερρὺ ες 417 ἜΝ πο τ: 433 0. 2
KL Gol acsseroetenscateuee cer tens 240 ὑπο ΡΣ ὙΠ ΤΡ ΡΣ 46
τ Te το ΤΡ ΠΟΤ τος ΓΡΡ- 16, 436 MUP AGH εν τιον τι λει δοιδεις ας. ϑδις 8
τῆς; ΟΡ ΔΕΝ ΟΣ 15, 399. ΧΟ Secs ποτε τουορ 10, 356 n, 448

ΠΑ sine sicio'e's το σι ς πσσοσις II Sih; BYE ὉΠ Ὁ ΠΡ ΡΣΡΣ 357 n. 1

GEIR OR 15. vane. --nveccanoesoare 437 ΧΟ ον ouch sede te δ: ρον τιν 15
VeRO Ate als oo asics sige ciees 8, 438 ilectiscsiccutaco eee ew eee
SRM ete eta oi caco\ve nsx asnrinne 10 POM Ei ey 2ecs Ὑπὸ δ ΤΑ τος 377, 448

VLG LO Meeeeentee sho seid. seas ase 15 TOK sgwailpsehesbane woe te acess ΙΟ

ᾷ

490 INDEX ΠῚ,
PAGE PAGE
2. Cor, Vili. 4 asseccsseserressereseseonennes 12 2 Pob.1,.9g. ccocceesers vedvaveds serene BS
TEAL ΕΝ τ, ΠΡῸΣ ΝΠ 11 ἘΝ DR REE Er ine
Ibe Os x decrvnesdvacigeier sav arns 12 OY. δία........ duck oer *
Bel BL, x cecevwvassvvonmteshenrenies 8, 390 ΜΙῸΣ... ον tinted 10, 449 π.
Wh sid... Χ.. οὐνουνῳ νόσοι ον fairs 89 n. Σ Pot. UL, £8. .ives.cccscdeviibsobo ΟἿΟΝ 450
Ws iGO vevonntwrwaviad δεν tiated 375 IB 5. Δ issccesccsalatyes tie ir
PL Ὁ. ἐν εὐ ΕΖ, datas εν «teas 440 GO ῥευνιινευονον dearer 10
ἘΔ]. 1 58. ,πεὐθθονννε ιν ἐν ies 10 Val BO ssninseduowd eels False ern Sn Ir
| REAR sete ὭΣ a: .θ. 449 Κ΄ Fohn 1: σοι bean 9, 456
SOL eed an caunnen essay ato as 450—1 he Bee fos sunidudaneah cave eaaee 419
ας, watts tuw thin biceps ake 373) 450 Ἐπ. 437
Δι πο Li ΨΡΒΌΜ ΤΣ τ: 382 ν. 7, 8...8, 293, 363 n, 387, 457
TOAD UIN dled Oa νον ΩΝ 15 Br) OLN LO vattevrA rnckeet Ἐκ. 21 |
tA ς ἌΒΡΕΕ ἈΡΒΝ ἄγ ΕΝ 14, 875) 452 Be OWN LA ΡΥ ΎΡ τ΄. 24 |
σόν eek ot ters aicatihcssth des ses 11 NUELO hsioudieds vesususs το 16, 375
ΝΗ, ὉΠ τς. 21 00H: DO tise ἐν Bag ieeecueee 13
ἢ ΑΒΕΝΨΕΡΟ, ΡΠ ἮΝ 12 ALL, . 26... vivevnws ceo ashy ae 9
BRO 8 le. F icavncsaansausaexdehictacetvics 12 Kd Lov vvvsvceatsdaePag ae 419
i AN inci snntaanlgliellt 370 n. 2 Sill.) χϑινν νον CRN 463
SBOE wdeaannanaasiedtintareetack 12 TF SectA messanieet amen eae 382—3
δι ται καρ παν 373 exit, 16 reeBT.\wscconesteds teres 296 n.
αν, Dard Sil As κω δίς denen 1 TESLO λυ sae 314, 439
*
"
THE END.
oo
Ο
-
=
P CAMBRIDGR: PRINTED BY ©, J, CLAY, M.A, AT ΤῊΝ UNIVERSITY PRESS, ,
4

ἃ
ΠΤ φλιθῆ στ se

va NV’ ee)
. co fxptstodiroZNNvxaIeHZ 9 v4 qYv
Lm pewrweagy pow weep (Ὁ)
ὌΧ
φλιταιι ΟΞΝΗΥΜΙΘΗΤΞΥ. QV

a STE ᾿

.Ψ
- . . ἣν
; 4 Γ

γῇ ".

4 :
.

Ps i
a ae
ae δ
ΜΠ
ἴα ml

ες ὁ. ᾿

ΩΣ ΘΝ

ὦ Ἐχφλιι Δι Ο ἘΝ
INVOIGOHZIVAIAY

(4)

οἰχφλιθάσ οξ
NWNYVYMIOH ZD VAG W

(¥)

mee AX paaodmo€i N10“ 29 axing

ar χφ μι [ΖΗ ΗΖ VIS
4 ω
Ὁ Ὁ Φ --
τ δι ΟΣ ΤΙΝ ΒΙ Ι ΘΗ ΖΚ 8}

(9)

ΠῚ etd

(9)
NN FACTINATOONTIO
NITONAN Rc ACO
JAN YSQLON KJ €7 OOF
KN AN TIRONDSI Re
KEYTCN IBLE RIAC CN
TOYCOYN C7 OYNIT A

(10)

ON TWCTTOAT MAS ECTATON τῇ

AT OPEYOMENONOIE TAITANTA
AYNACOAITINWCOKEINKAINO)
CINOYXOIONGAYTON OCENIOIC
OTAEN Tide PATA KATEXON
KAIOYT CY NOPCO NOT ITTOAXAAC)
TAITPIBHCANKAIATIOTHCAY

THCLTINHTAIMEOOAOY KAGCA

TT EPTATH CTTIOIHTIKHCAAGPH καὶ
SIO TITTEP ITOY CTTOAYMAOEIC

(1.8)

CEXY TON IKAC CW:
ΧΗ CKAIASDH M EpcD
CONE TAZAKP I TX
EMVTONAAONMY
[CA IK AT ETATTIN CD
CAKATTAN TAC TOY
EXO poy CCOYKAI
AY ZHCW CE KAIOI

(11.b)

i PATI CET Fs
AN EICTEPOYC

Plate IV.

Plate V.

(12)
if Ν -

~ od

HAPXt1 EMOINCENOOC TON OY

ANOHKALTHNCHN HAECTHHHAO

paroc τ Αια ISA TA CIKEYACTOC -
KAICIKOTOCE NANG THCABYCC Oy:

(13)
rT rPoc EXETEEAYVTOIC INAITTAN TET
TTOINMNMNICGIENCDY MACTOTTNATo
APIONCOETOETTICISOTTOYC:
TIFOIMAINEGEI IN THNEKKICAHCIAN

TOY IS Y HNTTE PIGTTOIHCATOAIA
TOYVAILMATOC TOY LAIOY:

hs TOYAOroy oy
Er@Menrony
MIN'OYI<GC Tin
AOYNKRO CMIZ>
TOYKYAY yor

TLV ΗΦΉΨΥΥ ΝΠ,
MAD ATV Ad
κὐ ἐπ λα νὴ

λυ} ἐπ Λϑηι
ΕΣ

Rees ip ἐσοθις A
erect Norhniren 0am.

“TA Sahel

COILN DLO dd JON NOWOIWO ey,
HLVdSttHd

CONLIN XSCOND.LSHDI MOLI O ΓΙΟΊΥΜΙΝ

contd clos ΓΙ SL 39. YNOdbmo NOOVAIVNI
LOD|IXLId SOU PIS NONIZOVIPVYVY
«ΟἿ 90)71 4 δ Ὁ) ΕΓ Οὗ HVdS MOdXOIWH IN

(61)

9M ΕΘ ΘΙ εἰ Lr
_OLVTTTTONM®.LO.LY-RH

NOY H9e Olle yi)
NOTTHIOTT
~POCDOIONIOM AON F&F

(8T)
TIA 97814

‘ “=
: “
, a
?
᾿
;
Ψ
an
» 3
ἐ ;
7

é -
7 ι 7
Ν
. -
¢
ΑΙ ; ;
ἡ ὦν ΠΩ

γε,

ναὶ ἣν.

Plate VIL.
(20)

~ + AMICK + é
ῷ cf ᾧ
= : a
S 4 \ a 4

MAKAPIOCA NEO CON KETTOPEYOHEN
BOYAHACEBCON

Ss
KATE NO AW XSMAPTOWADN OY KECTH
κἀι ἔτι AO ᾿ΕἈραναοιμεῦ νου KEKSE 1c
ΧΧΧΗ͂ΘΗΝ TON OMWKY TOE CAHMAAYTY
KATEN TON OMDAY TOY MCKETHCE
, ArrepACKAINY KTOC

KAI Ses Cae ori 6 nice ner
(21)
re vt Sibi bce
26 area
> pwn sii
; Ὁ YP OMAD IO nes Ardy ει

CENE ΠΑΝ Ἴ' 0’ Ι(Δ
Ὅτ Le ae

{5}
Ὁ} Z p10

(22)

5 AN TOGIY BY
GIC TOMA

MAPGIKAAGIA

TONOAAMMO

NICOGICINA

(23)

“
qT ΤΠ αα,γνι φαρισοιι οικζαὶ τραμμακᾶσ.
ωτπτὸ ἡ 6-0 go ALL oop: Agr cer: om ‘ol Ha OH
Saal συυ eo THE aT Up oDony up

mor p Crus TOPO p OUrSP HI —ogop TAL TATA pao

levee, IDC.

CODON *ILLUE), IQ, Wes, 10. saseqd | | -dowpe, SHL/13 ,OdD§, doy oy , 93d0d, oy /30Hd
NHS, wane, sepug, SMISIUCY 5 Ἰδὲ 13A3 ‘BVYDTNOL’ NOLAND NODIO,INOL / TOM,
SEPM , WNW , Ne, ΟΣ τῆς «fownol, doy 3οηπή8Α8, 37, IH

CF, ory MUS IL, ICE) Aly “FOU lor 20nrll3A3,31.. hep exe) 9)
(ξ ICA, WU, verqyy, (ὡς al," ΜΟΙ flop aonddsds, το σφ et
σύταῦ hTYsPUIve, (YY, 1} BG “DDdgO »; NOIN .CIADY ,AOIN, NOL

ace sionbuS, γα ff, 2 o1dX . AOOHI A 5c0303NBA.« SOE

‘Cdey “MquEqr Penance: 1'dey πιι 1

(48)

δεν po 4

AdIKO.L Ittsaog
NYIO HV SSONHLL LOVISSTOOS
NIQNIWIOLS ey ere

(95)

*, MAD if i @ "(5 Ὁ δι} ek ein τῳ lL Ὁ a9 1045 WPA oa τς by f "ene
SK Higa gid. ton or ONG AG Rin V OVO

IDOLS

δ᾽

otal

(29)

Plate ἐς.
(26)

τ ας πονν οἹάρχιε PEICISAror
ΒΑ Ge TORNWCEO AN EAU)
CIN AY TON, Edosoynrwra
TONAAON EGICHADENAGCCA

es
"ἘΞ = (27) ai λ7δεεές.
ἜΞ ς-

τ [ see κέφεμη
Pay ΞΞ

ae MYT WHTATALA
oo THAT ATA
Se

a TH SINE AOH
“πε οἵ ΤΑΙ ἐΠΕΤΊΜΝ
. ἐς Kb AHH: ΕἸΟΓΈΕΝ
<= ap NAN ’ TETHCAc
=o EG pen oun Ovi
== AN ATIOAY CHT HN
aS ΓΎΜ ΔΙ Αγ TOY:
coo (8.5)

son ΚΑΜΤ Λ΄ Karle, υνγϑϑ στον “ scaren
Ss ΠΣ ΣΤ Ἢ mMyswnir wep
τε ίπειι KOMAEL WE ATTIN

(8.2)

Plate ΧΙ.

(30 )

NOYCAISOATYE OVAL Awerdyre oi chTizn

TEED (Ὁ OAL PITLONAY TW+ PAB BEL ΛΕΓΕ

πρδιξ MAN EYOMENDINA LAATISAAL- πον

πειε λέγ TOICE EDX ECD εικαι AE TEFHA
-ς (31)

1A
A

\
x

NOT PW ALT UT Ὑπλτ πεν

βιρμμεμ: ἔλτυτιιν
NMAC ENV AAT HE

METAN IAN +0A,€0
MICWAIIVEPX IME

1X CRAR

(31.b) |

HV Te κῦ ὥμωμ' eae Ger] ak post
cheapie tpuliyepre ws op eet;
Ἐς τ οἰ τὶ μά- ὡανέθ μομεντη a

Taw. rie Hy Ure us pip eri Wo
ἔχῃ ς. losere warned Ste wt p Sap iy,
“(Top ὃ «ἵν στον οὐυττοὺ ἔν οὐπτὶ ok us P πτυυς

THD mk pow aimee δὰ, arty wound canoe
Qev'p baparnoy- ipa Caurépli yep bl xe εἰς
VEKE AyD ane Pvyng τοντσρσ, ὄντωασ ς
κἰακξια ἐμ ICCULPOTH pone wept soars
τ μ' {γαῖ σύμδυ τοῦ γόον ὦ «τεμττρομο! οὗ
Maret τουθαμ αὐτουάυτου, Ope Karem e

oly cterotoses er, “Go ue pa: TOUTS A POSKOPT
ἀ τί ὃ wapesos Kp paper στ ἐ- φξωθῆι
ἐμ ὦ τς τας yh Θ΄ τὸ oman ταῖς act τέ"
ες σ-. τον alin Εἰ Source pe moter rH pene
vt: πον do Ὁ

38) ὥς

napakancrest: Onap Lkareon
ude enindcilnepainbernens

-ϑ
ae

τῷ,

ALIAW YY

VUE μιν

Pritts
NT

4 «> avnactar Hacdcnapaksrrcin
/ ee eroYCEN MACH βγάψει Diacuend
pakaniecoet HCrrap ekarov ne

ha arcornyp- TD TOV AY Ort Κα -θεὺς

nity
+WwT

(84

sx
2)

ὕπτου χὺ Gy
ἄν,

4 Wea) Gy by Jyh

asar\hp ὦ rake Gph pars reap θ᾿. το
orl ih Gluuyhotos τσ

A O *
VOW μεστὸ TOY OVO

ararthpeoly gop Wey: bat ἀ μπτὸ

vhoaply pou ἔσσῃ τὸ

ΓΌΝΥ ἐΓΈΝΕΤΟΝΕ

CDIAHICALFITECHIACEN
‘AWTOYt EQOBIPH CA’

ΕΣ Ν

(33)

TOICHAAGIECMENON'! AOYO!
ENIMATLCMWENACZWK A(T pV
Φ ἀν πάρχον TEC EN TOILB-ACLAEL
OIC EICIN “OAAATIES EAH AY HA

Plate Ue

—

eee Oe 4
‘orc:

@ok are

“εκεζ7 Σ᾽ rey)

οϑε. CD Ryu
s ~~ > 4 J
cnhe ve by Com ἀφ εαουν». Corre Gaw Our ὧν “μος ξεεὼ . cc burke

μεν ἐξ is μ᾿

-τ- Ὡς J σας vec,
r ww - ὃς ξὺ οεξελτε Ow εἰν -γντιν

(35)

Χο

ἐμὰ , εἶ

Date Due

PRINTED | IN U.S, A.

Β52385.5434
Α pon introduction to ‘on Criticism of
on Theolog

| Il ! il It il)

012 00077 1495 sii

: ᾽
;
i
Hi
i}
Ἢ
5
:
Sebati ee i?
eeert } .
7 ᾿

ee ba be 08 Bs
ΠΗ
ἢ

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "A plain introduction to the criticism of the New Testament for the use of biblical students"

See other formats